DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 08/25/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li et al. (USPGPub 2021/0152728).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
emission component for emitting in claim 1
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. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
emission component - paragraph 0007
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (USPGPub 2021/0089040) in view of Li et al. (USPGPub 2021/0152728). As per claim 1, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses a self-moving device (see at least paragraph 0256; wherein a robot), comprising: a first image acquisition apparatus, a second image acquisition apparatus (see at least paragraph 0256; wherein sensors 101 (e.g., camera, laser emitter, TOF sensor, IR sensors, range finders, LIDAR, depth cameras, etc.)) and a controller (see at least paragraph 0256; wherein a processor of the robot); wherein the first image acquisition apparatus comprises an emission component for emitting infrared signal light and a first sensor for receiving a first image formed by reflection of the infrared signal light through a target object (see at least paragraph 0324; wherein depths may be inferred based (e.g., exclusively based on or in combination with other inputs) on pixel intensities from a depth image captured by a depth camera. Depths may be inferred from the time it takes for an infrared light (or sound) transmitted by a sensor to reflect off of an object and return back to the depth perceiving device or by a variety of other techniques), and distance information of the target object is determined based on the first image (see at least paragraph 0246; wherein a presence of an obstacle in the FOV of a camera may be detected, then a distance to the obstacle may be determined); the second image acquisition apparatus comprises a second sensor (see at least paragraph 0246; wherein images captured by the camera may be processed to identify objects or faces…a camera may be used to capture images or videos in a first time interval…the type of obstacle may be determined (e.g., human, pet, table, wire, or another object), then, in the case where the obstacle type is a human, facial recognition may be performed to identify the human), and type information of the target object is determined based on the second image (see at least paragraph 0246; wherein a presence of an obstacle in the FOV of a camera may be detected, then a distance to the obstacle may be determined, then the type of obstacle may be determined); and the controller controls behaviors of the self-moving device based on at least one of the distance information and the type information (see at least paragraph 0256; wherein a processor of the robot may use data collected by various sensors to devise, through various phases of processing, a polymorphic path plan). Ebrahimi Afrouzi does not explicitly mention the second sensor receives a second image formed by reflection of visible light through the target object; and the second image acquisition apparatus further comprises: a fill-in light, and at least part of visible light emitted by the fill-in light enters the second sensor through reflection of the target object. However Li does disclose: the second sensor receives a second image formed by reflection of visible light through the target object (see at least paragraph 0006; wherein he fill light unit is configured to fill light for a photographed object when the fill light frame is generated. The processor is configured to combine a visible light frame and a fill light frame that are adjacent or consecutive, to generate a composite frame); and the second image acquisition apparatus further comprises: a fill-in light, and at least part of visible light emitted by the fill-in light enters the second sensor through reflection of the target object (see at least paragraph 0045; wherein when generating the fill light frame, the image sensor 140 may receive both the infrared light used for light filling and visible light). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Li with the teachings as in Ebrahimi Afrouzi. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve utilization efficiency of the image sensor, see Li paragraph 0007. As per claim 2, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses wherein the emission component comprises at least one linear laser device, infrared laser is emitted by the at least one linear laser device, the first image is captured by the first sensor, and the first image comprises light information of the infrared laser reflected by the target object (see at least paragraph 0324; wherein depths may be inferred based (e.g., exclusively based on or in combination with other inputs) on pixel intensities from a depth image captured by a depth camera. Depths may be inferred from the time it takes for an infrared light (or sound) transmitted by a sensor to reflect off of an object and return back to the depth perceiving device or by a variety of other techniques). As per claim 3, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses wherein the at least one linear laser device comprises a first linear laser unit and a second linear laser unit; and in a projection direction of the self-moving device, a connection line between the first sensor and an intersection point of a first linear lasers emitted by the first linear laser unit and a second linear laser emitted by the second linear laser unit is parallel to an advancing direction of the self-moving device (see at least paragraph 0310; wherein robot 500 with mounted camera 501 perceiving depths 502, 503, and 504 within consecutively overlapping fields of view 505, 506, and 507, respectively. In this case, depths 502, 503, and 504 have overlapping depths 508). As per claim 4, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses wherein the first linear laser and the second linear laser are emitted simultaneously or alternately (see at least paragraph 0310; wherein robot 500 with mounted camera 501 perceiving depths 502, 503, and 504 within consecutively overlapping fields of view 505, 506, and 507, respectively. In this case, depths 502, 503, and 504 have overlapping depths 508). As per claim 9, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses wherein the second image is recognized by a neural network to determine a type of the target object (see at least paragraph 0590; wherein the processor may determine an object type of an object using a convolutional neural network trained using real world images of different objects under different environmental conditions). As per claim 10, Ebrahimi Afrouzi discloses wherein a relationship between the target object and dictionary data is determined based on the type information to obtain a confirmation result (see at least abstract; wherein capturing images of a workspace, comparing at least one object from the captured images to objects in an object dictionary, identifying a class to which the at least one object belongs using an object classification unit, instructing the robot to execute at least one action based on the object class identified); an attitude of the target object is determined based on the distance information (see at least paragraph 0291; wherein a depth image may be any image containing data which can be related to the distance from the depth perceiving device to objects captured in the image. For example, in one embodiment the depth perceiving device may capture depth images containing depth vectors to objects, from which the Euclidean norm of each vector may be calculated, representing the depth from the camera to objects within the field of view of the camera); and the self-moving device is controlled to execute a corresponding travel strategy based on at least one of the confirmation result and/or the attitude of the target object (see at least abstract; wherein capturing images of a workspace, comparing at least one object from the captured images to objects in an object dictionary, identifying a class to which the at least one object belongs using an object classification unit, instructing the robot to execute at least one action based on the object class identified).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (USPGPub 2021/0089040), in view of Li et al. (USPGPub 2021/0152728), and further in view of Muukki et al. (USPGPub 2015/0015736). As per claim 5, Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li do not explicitly mention wherein the first sensor is used for capturing a background image, and the background image does not include light information of the first linear laser and the second linear laser reflected by the target object. However Muukki does disclose: wherein the first sensor is used for capturing a background image, and the background image does not include light information of the first linear laser and the second linear laser reflected by the target object (see at least paragraph 0044; wherein the one or more detectors 21 may be configured to detect the lux level, the contrast of a scene, the dimensions of an object, the type of object to be imaged or motion of the object or any other suitable physical condition. In such embodiments the at least one detector 21 may comprise a light level sensor, means for detecting a reflected signal such as an ultra-sound or infra red signal or any other suitable detectors). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Muukki with the teachings as in Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an apparatus for capturing images which is simpler for a user to use, see Muukki paragraph 0004.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (USPGPub 2021/0089040), in view of Li et al. (USPGPub 2021/0152728), and further in view of Huang (WO2018/076931A1). As per claims 7, Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li do not explicitly mention wherein the controller controls the fill-in light to be in an "on" state or an "off" state based on ambient brightness. However Huang does disclose: wherein the controller controls the fill-in light to be in an "on" state or an "off" state based on ambient brightness (see at least paragraph 32; wherein a management module, configured to turn on or turn off the automatic light supplementing function according to the current ambient brightness of the mobile terminal). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huang with the teachings as in Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the quality of a front-facing camera under a dark light condition, see Huang paragraph 70.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (USPGPub 2021/0089040), in view of Li et al. (USPGPub 2021/0152728), and further in view of Owada et al. (USPGPub 2024/0371033). As per claims 8, Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li do not explicitly mention wherein camera three-dimensional coordinate information of the target object relative to the first image acquisition apparatus is determined based on the first image; and world three-dimensional coordinate information of the target object is determined based on the camera three-dimensional coordinate information. However Owada does disclose: wherein camera three-dimensional coordinate information of the target object relative to the first image acquisition apparatus is determined based on the first image; and world three-dimensional coordinate information of the target object is determined based on the camera three-dimensional coordinate information (see at least paragraph 0059; wherein to clarify a positional relationship between a target object and the sensor unit 110 or the like in a bird's-eye view, the point cloud acquisition unit 201 inputs a distance image, converts the distance image from the camera coordinate system into the world coordinate system, and generates a three-dimensional point cloud in the world coordinate system). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Owada with the teachings as in Ebrahimi Afrouzi and Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately specify a position and pose of a target object, see Owada paragraph 0007.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2025/0061730 – Provides reconstructing three-dimensional (3D) scenes from two-dimensional (2D) images using a neural network. USPGPub 2023/0074368 – Provides identifying one or more boundaries separating drivable free-space (e.g., obstacle free-space) from non-drivable space (e.g., space with or beyond one or more obstacles) in a physical environment for use by an autonomous vehicle in navigating the physical environment..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights