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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The reference numbers for all figures seem to be shifted to the right
Reference characters “17” and “27” have both been used to designate “base”
Reference character “17” has been used to designate both “measurement radiation” and “base”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “an imaging field of view”, and the claim also recites “particularly an imaging field of view of 100 °”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1, and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the cover is configured to be essentially free of refractive power compared to a refractive power of the imaging unit”, and the claim also recites “particularly wherein an absolute value of the refractive power of the cover is 50 times, more particularly 200 times, less than an absolute value of the refractive power of the imaging unit.”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade name Zeonex®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the material of a and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “optical synthetic material”, and the claim also recites “particularly Zeonex, polycarbonate or PMMA”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 9, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a mobile carrier”, and the claim also recites “ particularly a person or a robot or a vehicle”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 13-15 depend on claim 12 and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
For examining purposes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of all claims containing broad and narrow limitations is taken to be the broad limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck et al. (US 20180299554) in view of Devlin et al. (US 20220385042).
Regarding claim 1, Van Dyck teaches:
A range imaging module (Fig. 2), which comprises:
an emitter unit configured to emit distance measurement radiation (#210 of Fig. 2), a range imaging receiver (#220 of Fig. 2, detector) comprising a detection area (#102 of Fig. 11, sensor, [87]) with multiple photo sensitive detection elements for detecting returning parts of the distance measurement radiation [87], wherein the range imaging receiver is configured to provide for each of the detection elements a distance measurement based on a time-of-flight measuring principle using the distance measurement radiation [51], and
an imaging unit (#102 and #1330 of Fig. 11, sensor and fish eye optics respectively) configured to image returning distance measurement radiation from an imaging field of view [87], particularly an imaging field of view of 100 onto the detection area, thereby separating a region outside the imaging unit, from a converging beam region after the imaging unit (#1330 of Fig. 11, fish eye optics, separates the outside beams from the converging beams)where the returning distance measurement radiation is in a converging state (#1330 of Fig. 11, fish eye optics, put the beams into a converging state),
a cover being transparent for at least part of the distance measurement radiation (#1310 of Fig. 11, dome) and comprising a band-pass filter coating (#1320 of Fig. 11, filter), wherein the cover with the band-pass filter coating is arranged in the region outside the imaging unit and encloses the imaging unit (#1310 and #1320 of Fig. 11, dome and fish eye optics respectively), so that returning distance measurement radiation from the imaging field of view of the imaging unit first passes the cover with the band-pass filter coating and then the imaging unit [87].
Van Dyck does not teach:
Collimated emitter light and a collimated region outside the imaging unit
However, Devlin teaches:
Collimating emitter light [5]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter of Van Dyck with collimation similar to Devlin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the SNR of the system by increasing spot brightness compared to ambient light.
Regarding claim 2, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the band-pass filter coating is arranged on an inner surface of the cover (#1320 of Fig. 11, filter).
Regarding claim 3, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the band-pass filter coating is arranged on an outer surface of the cover (#1320 of Fig. 11, filter, [87]).
Regarding claim 4, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the cover is matched with the imaging unit in such a way that respective angles of incidence onto the band-pass filter coating are less than 0.50 for all chief rays of the returning distance measurement radiation within the imaging field of view of the imaging unit ([87] states that the dome and filter are configured such that the incident light passes through a direction substantially normal to the domes surface).
For the purpose of defining “substantially normal”, She et al. (Adjustment and Calibration of Dome Port…, 2019) teaches:
“In case a camera is exactly positioned at the center of the dome, all principal rays will pass the air-glass-water interfaces at 90°”
She shows that a spherical / hemispherical dome can be configured such that all chief rays pass through at 90° to the surface, which is 0° from the normal. Thus, substantially normal is interpreted as being 0 degrees from the normal. While Van Dyck does not explicitly state that the dome is spherical, it is shown in Fig. 11 to be spherical. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would read the description of returning rays being substantially normal to the surface and understand that the dome should be of spherical shape.
Regarding claim 6, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 4, wherein a shape of the cover is matched with the imaging unit in such a way that respective angles of incidence onto the band-pass filter coating are less than 0.20 for all chief rays of the returning distance measurement radiation within the imaging field of view of the imaging unit ([87] states that the dome and filter are configured such that the incident light passes through a direction substantially normal to the domes surface).
For the purpose of defining “substantially normal”, She et al. (Adjustment and Calibration of Dome Port…, 2019) teaches:
“In case a camera is exactly positioned at the center of the dome, all principal rays will pass the air-glass-water interfaces at 90°”
She shows that a spherical / hemispherical dome can be configured such that all chief rays pass through at 90° to the surface, which is 0° from the normal. Thus, substantially normal is interpreted as being 0 degrees from the normal. While Van Dyck does not explicitly state that the dome is spherical, it is shown in Fig. 11 to be spherical. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would read the description of returning rays being substantially normal to the surface and understand that the dome should be of spherical shape.
Regarding claim 7, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit comprises a F-Theta lens or a fisheye lens (#1330 of Fig. 11, fish-eye optics) and the cover has a spherical shape (#1310 of Fig. 11, dome).
While Van Dyck does not explicitly state that the dome is spherical, it is shown in Fig. 11 to be spherical. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would read the description of returning rays being substantially normal to the surface and understand that the dome should be of spherical shape.
Regarding claim 10, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
A reality capture device configured to generate 3D measurement data for generating a digital representation of an environment [29], wherein the reality capture device comprises a range imaging module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) and is configured to generate the 3D measurement data based on range images provided by the range imaging module [29].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Menna et al. (Geometric and Optic Characterization of a Hemispherical Dome…, 2016).
Regarding claim 5, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection), wherein the band-pass filter coating is arranged on an inner surface of the cover (#1320 of Fig. 11, filter)
Van Dyck does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the imaging unit and the cover are configured in such a way that a sole impact of a refractive power of the cover lies in a defocusing effect on returning distance measurement radiation when it propagates through the imaging unit onto the detection area, wherein the defocusing effect can be compensated for the full imaging field of view of the imaging unit by refocusing a receiving lens of the imaging unit.
However, Menna et al. teaches:
Dome ports act as a diverging lens (“spherical dome port is a concentric lens that acts as an additional optical element to the camera lens. Indeed, it is a real lens, more precisely, a negative or diverging lens”) and
Adjusting the focal distance of a camera to accommodate for the lensing effect of a dome port (“The camera-lens system behind the dome port will actually focus not on the real object but on the virtual image produced by the dome port itself at a smaller distance than the object.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical receiver of Van Dyck to use a hemispherical dome port which is also a diverging lens and to correct for the change in focal length similar to Menna with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the accuracy of the system by properly focusing returning optical signals. While Van Dyck does not explicitly state that the dome is spherical, it is shown in Fig. 11 to be spherical. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would read the description of returning rays being substantially normal to the surface and understand that the dome should be of spherical shape.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz (US 20200161752).
Regarding claim 8, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1,
Van Dyck does not teach:
wherein the cover is configured to be essentially free of refractive power compared to a refractive power of the imaging unit, particularly wherein an absolute value of the refractive power of the cover is 50 times, more particularly 200 times, less than an absolute value of the refractive power of the imaging unit.
However, Kurtz teaches:
a dome can be designed to have no lens effect [31]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dome of Van Dyck with the zero-lensing design of Kurtz with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving accuracy by reducing refraction and ensuring that light spots appear on the image plane with minimal distortion.
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrade et al. (US 12320916).
Regarding claim 9, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The range imaging module according to claim 1,
Van Dyck does not teach:
wherein the cover is made from glass substrate or an optical synthetic material, particularly Zeonex, polycarbonate or PMMA.
However, Andrade teaches:
A dome made of PMMA (“the LiDAR dome may further be made from a high impact PMMA material”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dome of Van Dyck to be made from PMMA similar to Andrade with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing impact resistance. (Andrade: “Molding the dome out of a high impact PMMA material may assist in making the dome more scratch resistant and more impact resistant. In addition, the high impact PMMA may have desirable optical qualities while in a dome shape.”)
Regarding claim 11, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
A reality capture device configured to generate 3D measurement data for generating a digital representation of an environment [29], wherein the reality capture device comprises a range imaging module according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9) and is configured to generate the 3D measurement data based on range images provided by the range imaging module [29].
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 20220026920)
Regarding claim 12, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 10, wherein the reality capture device is configured to be carried and moved by a mobile carrier [28], particularly a person or a robot or a vehicle
Van Dyck does not teach, but Ebrahimi does teach:
to be moved during a measuring process for generating the digital representation of the environment [805], wherein the measuring process comprises generation of mutually referenced 3D measurement data on the basis of range images provided by the range imaging module at different locations and poses of the reality capture device (Figs. 70A-C, 80)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the reality capture device of Van Dyck into an autonomous control system similar to Ebrahimi with a reasonable expectation of success. Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor.
Regarding claim 13, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 12,
Van Dyck does not teach, but Ebrahimi does teach:
wherein the reality capture device is configured to use localization data of a localization unit for providing referencing of the range images with respect to each other during the measuring process [805-806], wherein the localization data provide for determining pose information for a position and orientation of the reality capture device during the measuring process[805-806].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the reality capture device of Van Dyck into an autonomous control system similar to Ebrahimi with a reasonable expectation of success. Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor.
Regarding claim 14, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 13,
Van Dyck does not teach, but Ebrahimi does teach:
wherein the localization data comprise inertial measurement data [805, 891] .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the reality capture device of Van Dyck into an autonomous control system similar to Ebrahimi with a reasonable expectation of success. Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor.
Regarding claim 15, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 12
Van Dyck does not teach, but Ebrahimi does teach:
wherein the reality capture device is configured for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) [714] to generate a three- dimensional map based on at least one of the range images provided by the range imaging module, inertial measurement data, and 2D imaging data [833]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the reality capture device of Van Dyck into an autonomous control system similar to Ebrahimi with a reasonable expectation of success. Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150146189)
Regarding claim 16, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 10,
Van Dyk Does not teach, but Kim does teach:
wherein the reality capture device comprises an event detector configured to classify the 3D measurement data for detecting an event within the environment [53-54].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and distance measurement system of Van Dyck with a detector and classifier similar to Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving the safety of a vehicle including the system of Van Dyck. Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyck in view of Devlin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 10267918)
Regarding claim 17, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 10,
Van Dyck does not teach, but LaChapelle does teach:
wherein the reality capture device comprises a further range imaging module, wherein the range imaging module and the further range imaging module are each configured to provide an imaging field of view of 90°, for generating respective range images (“As another example, 4-10 lidar systems 100, each system having a 45-degree to 90-degree horizontal FOR, may be combined together to form a sensing system that provides a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal FOR.”.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Van Dyck to include multiple ranging devices similar to LaChapelle with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the FOV of the system and thus improving the safety of an ADAS that the optical system is connected to . Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor
Regarding claim 18, Van Dyck, as modified above, teaches:
The reality capture device according to claim 10,
Van Dyk does not teach, but LaChapelle does teach:
wherein the reality capture device comprises a further range imaging module, wherein the range imaging module and the further range imaging module are each configured to provide an imaging field of view of 180° for generating respective range images (“As another example, 4-10 lidar systems 100, each system having a 45-degree to 90-degree horizontal FOR, may be combined together to form a sensing system that provides a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal FOR.”, 2 90 degree systems of the four systems can create a 180-degree FOV).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Van Dyck to include multiple ranging devices similar to LaChapelle with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the FOV of the system and thus improving the safety of an ADAS that the optical system is connected to . Van Dyck teaches that their sensor system can be advantageously integrated into an autonomous system [28], thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate it into an autonomous system to provide distance measurement data over a wide field of view with a small form factor
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Engstrom et al. (US 3976875) teaches a similar dome and filter structure for a photodetector. Bao et al. (US 20240118389) teaches a similar structure where the window itself may be a dispersive optic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights