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 .
Notice to the Applicant
Limitations appearing inside {} are intended to indicate the limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
The Amendment filled 04/26/2024 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 have been newly canceled.
Claims 2-4, 8, and 16 are original.
Claims 21-28 are newly added.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, 16, 19, and 21-28 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) was filed; therefore, no applicant-submitted references were considered.
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. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25, and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-5, 8-10, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12002229 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of reference anticipate and/or render obvious independent claim(s) of the instant application, in further view of the following reasons/considerations:
Instant claims and claims of reference recite common subject matter, and recite the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” which does not preclude any additional elements recited by claims of reference – see the limitation mappings presented below;
Language/terminology of instant claim(s) constituting minor/slight variations from the claims of reference, if/where present, require interpretations under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and/or plain meaning definitions (MPEP §2173 and §2111) equivalent to/met by language of the reference claims in view of that corresponding/shared Specification. While the disclosure of reference may not be used as prior art (Double Patenting concerns the claims of reference), portions of the specification which provide support for reference claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the scope of claim(s) of reference and the issue of whether an instant claim defines an obvious variation or falls within the scope of an invention claimed in the claim(s) of reference. See MPEP 804 with reference to In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the instant application ‘388 discloses an apparatus comprising (claim 1 line 1):
an interface configured to receive pixel data (claim 1 line 2) of an environment with a structured light pattern (claim 1 line 2-3); and
a processor configured to (claim 1 line 5)
(i) process said pixel data arranged as video frames (claim 1 line 5-6),
(ii) preprocess a plurality of reference images comprising said structured light pattern (claim 1 line 6-8),
(iii) generate lookup data (claim 1 line 8) and
(iv) generate a disparity map in response to (claim 1 line 8-10)
(a) said video frames, (b) said structured light pattern, (c) said reference images and (d) said lookup data (claim 1 line 10-12 ),
wherein said processor comprises neural network hardware configured to (claim 1 line 12-13):
(A) arrange said plurality of reference images into a four-dimensional tensor (claim 1 line 14-15),
(B) perform logical operations on one of said video frames in a depth direction of said four-dimensional tensor to generate a tensor of feature maps of said video frames (claim 1 line 16-19),
(C) use a horizontal and vertical separation convolution and dilation with convolution filtering in said depth direction of said tensor of feature maps (claim 1 line 20-23),
(D) determine an index map location (claim 1 line 29), and
(E) search said lookup data based on said index map location to determine said disparity map (claim 1 line 30-32).
Claim 2, (claim 2).
Claim 3, (claim 3).
Claim 4 (claim 4).
Claim 5 (claim 5).
Claim 8 (claim 8).
Claim 9 (claim 9).
Claim 10 (claim 10).
Claim 13 (claim 13).
Claim 16 (claim 16).
Claims 21-26 are similarly analyzed as claims 1, 2-5, 8-10, 13 and 16 of the instant application.
Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 21 (claim 1); claims directed to different statutory categories are rejected under Obviousness type Double Patenting since they are otherwise congruent in scope
Claim 11 (claim 11).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 16-18, shown below, recites (“one of said video frames” and “said video frames”. For consistent claim language consider revising the second instance of video frames in line 18 to at least:
“one of said video frames”, or
“said video frame[[s]]”.
PNG
media_image1.png
101
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
interface in claims 1 and 21.
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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 13, 16, 19, and 21-28 would be allowable if corresponding Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome (see note above regarding the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer). References of record fail to serve in any obvious combination teaching suggesting each and every limitation as required therein, and reasons for allowance are apparent from the record(s) associated with parent application 17/479,073 now US 12002229 B2 See MPEP § 1302.14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-893 for full citations.
Liao 2020 teaches dilated convolution with vertical and horizontal kernels
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is 571-272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (ET).
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights