DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Double Patenting 2
Allowable Subject Matter 7
Conclusion 7
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 3/4/24. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2 in view of Nevet (US 2016/0349359 A1).
Regarding claim 1 of the current application, claim 1 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2, while disclosing most of the limitations, does not teach assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells.
Nevet teaches a system in the same field of endeavor, comprising assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells (see 0003, 0004, 00016, 0017, 0025, 0026, 0030, 0031; spread spectrum technique …. ToF cameras have different emission and gate sequences…. present spread spectrum techniques enable the cameras 105 to simultaneously operate in the application environment with substantially reduced interference in many implementations. By contrast, the present spread spectrum techniques employ a pseudo-random varying period so that the sequence 400 is cyclically performed with periods having random lengths bounded within some time interval associated with the range of depth being measured by the ToF camera. For example, a single 5 nsec pulse is sent and a single 10 nsec gate is opened 10 nsec after sending the pulse. The next pulse is sent Delta_T after the previous pulse, when Delta_T is pseudo-randomly chosen from the range [150 ns, 190 ns] in increments of 1 ns, for a distance range of up to 4.5 m. [0026] Because two ToF cameras using spread spectrum will output different sequences, the pulses of one camera will arrive to the other camera in random time delays with respect to the camera's open gate. When these time delays are spread over many repetitions—for example, at least an order of magnitude of the number of possible time delays (e.g., 40 in the case of the 150 to 190 ns range), so that all the possible time delays are equally distributed—they essentially function as an integrated signal which is unrelated to the depth of the object measured in each pixel illuminated by the interfering camera; FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 600 for reducing interference among multiple instances of time of flight (ToF) cameras that are used to render a depth image of a scene. In step 605, the scene is illuminated using light pulses that are generated in a cyclical sequence. In step 610, for each cycle, light is captured at a gated image sensor. In step 615, the light pulses are generated and the gate is operated responsively to convolved timing signals so that depth is measured over a predetermined range of distances and using a sequence of light pulses that have a pseudo-randomly selected period for each cycle. In step 620, the time delays of light pulses from other ToF cameras are integrated so that the delays are evenly distributed over the predetermined range of distances to thereby mimic ambient light. [0031] In an alternative implementation, instead of using a pulsed source, a continuous wave light source is modulated using multiple frequencies (to reduce aliasing and extend ToF camera sensing range using frequencies that each have a different ambiguity distance) which are subjected to spreading using a pseudo-random sequence that is commonly shared between a light source and a non-gated image sensor. The image sensor is synchronously operated with the light source in lock step to enable the original modulated signal to be reconstructed and a phase difference between the emitted and reflected light as determined by a phase detector component is utilized to determine depth. Light emitted from other spread spectrum ToF cameras (that use different spreading sequences as they are selected pseudo-randomly) will appear to have random phase when integrated at the image sensor and will thus mimic the effects of ambient light.).
It would have been obvious to modify claim 1 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2 to assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells as taught by Nevet, to reduce interference among cameras (see 0004).
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 8, 9, the claims are taught further by claims 10 and 12 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2.
Regarding claim 10 of the current application, claim 13 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2, while disclosing most of the limitations, does not teach assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells.
Nevet teaches a system in the same field of endeavor, comprising assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells (see 0003, 0004, 00016, 0017, 0025, 0026, 0030, 0031; spread spectrum technique …. ToF cameras have different emission and gate sequences…. present spread spectrum techniques enable the cameras 105 to simultaneously operate in the application environment with substantially reduced interference in many implementations. By contrast, the present spread spectrum techniques employ a pseudo-random varying period so that the sequence 400 is cyclically performed with periods having random lengths bounded within some time interval associated with the range of depth being measured by the ToF camera. For example, a single 5 nsec pulse is sent and a single 10 nsec gate is opened 10 nsec after sending the pulse. The next pulse is sent Delta_T after the previous pulse, when Delta_T is pseudo-randomly chosen from the range [150 ns, 190 ns] in increments of 1 ns, for a distance range of up to 4.5 m. [0026] Because two ToF cameras using spread spectrum will output different sequences, the pulses of one camera will arrive to the other camera in random time delays with respect to the camera's open gate. When these time delays are spread over many repetitions—for example, at least an order of magnitude of the number of possible time delays (e.g., 40 in the case of the 150 to 190 ns range), so that all the possible time delays are equally distributed—they essentially function as an integrated signal which is unrelated to the depth of the object measured in each pixel illuminated by the interfering camera; FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an illustrative method 600 for reducing interference among multiple instances of time of flight (ToF) cameras that are used to render a depth image of a scene. In step 605, the scene is illuminated using light pulses that are generated in a cyclical sequence. In step 610, for each cycle, light is captured at a gated image sensor. In step 615, the light pulses are generated and the gate is operated responsively to convolved timing signals so that depth is measured over a predetermined range of distances and using a sequence of light pulses that have a pseudo-randomly selected period for each cycle. In step 620, the time delays of light pulses from other ToF cameras are integrated so that the delays are evenly distributed over the predetermined range of distances to thereby mimic ambient light. [0031] In an alternative implementation, instead of using a pulsed source, a continuous wave light source is modulated using multiple frequencies (to reduce aliasing and extend ToF camera sensing range using frequencies that each have a different ambiguity distance) which are subjected to spreading using a pseudo-random sequence that is commonly shared between a light source and a non-gated image sensor. The image sensor is synchronously operated with the light source in lock step to enable the original modulated signal to be reconstructed and a phase difference between the emitted and reflected light as determined by a phase detector component is utilized to determine depth. Light emitted from other spread spectrum ToF cameras (that use different spreading sequences as they are selected pseudo-randomly) will appear to have random phase when integrated at the image sensor and will thus mimic the effects of ambient light.).
It would have been obvious to modify claim 13 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2 to assigning a different spread-spectrum illumination pattern to each of the cameras of the first workcell and the cameras of the one or more neighboring workcells as taught by Nevet, to reduce interference among cameras (see 0004).
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claims are taught further by claims 14 and 15 of US Patent 11,679,504 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 13-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-7, 13-18, the Applicant’s claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art by the limitations within each claim. It is noted that the examiner has not found any other prior art to anticipate or obviate the quoted claim limitations when read in light/combination of the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nevet (US 2016/0349359 A1) is cited to teach reduction in camera to camera interference.
Bamji (US 7,405,812 B1) is cited to teach inter-system interference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights