DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 7, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and in further view of Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Zhang et al teaches: A method for measuring depth information relating to a scene on the basis of structured light generated by means of at least one parallel radiation source, wherein the method comprises: generating a respective electromagnetic beam by means of at least one parallel radiation source [abstract, page 3: p02, p03 (A beam generated by laser, a parallel radiation source, is reflected by MEMS mirror which is used for light reconstruction.)]; time-dependent sequential aligning or optically imaging of the beam or at least one of the beams at different locations, in particular punctiform or line segment-shaped locations, of a three-dimensional scene in order to irradiate the scene by means of the at least one imaged beam in the form of an irradiation pattern defined by one or more trajectories of the beam or beams arising by way of the time-dependent alignment or imaging of the beam or beams [page 3: fig. 1; page 6: p03; page 7: p01, p02 (Laser beam scanned by MEMS mirror sweeps across different scene locations.)]; detecting, at least in portions, of an image representation of the irradiation pattern, generated by an at least partial reflection of the irradiation pattern at one or more surfaces of at least one object present in the scene and generating image information which represents the detected image representation of the irradiation pattern [page 6: fig. 3, p03; page 7: fig. 4, p01, p02 (Image captured reveals a bright laser line stripe.)]; and evaluating the image information in order to calculate therefrom depth information regarding the scene [page 7: fig. 4, p03]; wherein the time-dependent sequential aligning or imaging of the beam or at least one of the beams onto different locations of the three-dimensional scene is carried out by deflecting the respective beam on at least one microscanner, with at least one respective MEMS mirror, in such a way that the time-dependent deflection of the MEMS mirror or mirrors at least partially defines the irradiation pattern [page 3: p02, page 6: p03 (MEMS mirror used as a scanning element and reflected beam moves over the scene over time and creates structure light pattern.)].
For a redundant teaching on structured light projection onto an object, reflection of the projected object pattern, and depth reconstruction of captured object pattern, Migdal et al, in the same field of endeavor, further prescribes in [abstract, claims 1 and 11]. Therefore, the combined teaching would have made it obvious to a skilled in the art to use Zhang et al’s MEMS scanned laser light projector in 3D reconstruction system of Migdal et al to obtain a structured light depth sensor with wide FOV scanning for predictable depth reconstruction.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al further teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein in order to generate the irradiation pattern, the beam or at least one of the beams is guided through one or more optical elements of a diffractive or refractive type by means of which the respective beam is spread out [page 6: p03].
Claims 24 and 26 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288); and in further view of Armstrong-Crews et al (US Pub: 20160004920).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al in view of Migdal et al does not disclose wavelength. In the same field of endeavor, Armstrong-Crews et al teaches: The method according to claim 1,wherein the beam or at least one of the beams has at least one spectral component with a wavelength of 490 nm or shorter and/or at least one spectral component with a wavelength of 700 nm or longer [p0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to have spectral component with a wavelength of 700nm or longer per design choice.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288); and in further view of Hendrix et al (US Pub: 2016/0266289).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al in view of Migdal et al does not explicitly on radiation filtering. In the same field of endeavor, Hendrix et al teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the beam or at least one of the beams is passed through a filter device for attenuating or filtering out electromagnetic radiation in a spectral range which is different from a wavelength or a wavelength spectrum of the beam, at least at one point along its path between the parallel radiation source and at least one radiation detector used to detect the image representation of the irradiation pattern [p0004, p0011, p0070, p0071 (The bandpass filter transmits emitted light and blocks ambient light.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to incorporate Hendrix et al’s spectral filtering feature to improve image capture in active 3D sensing by ambient light rejection.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288); and in further view of Zalevsky et al (US Pub: 20170004623).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al in view of Migdal et al does not specify a non-periodic manner, In the same field of endeavor, Zalevsky et al teaches: The method according claim 1, wherein the time-dependent sequential aligning or imaging of the beam or at least one of the beams at different locations of the three-dimensional scene takes place in a non- periodic manner, so that the trajectory of the respective beam runs non-periodically at least for certain periods of time [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to apply a non-periodic illumination pattern in 3D construction for supporting reliable depth recovery.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288); and in further view of Rekowski (US Pub: 2009/0206066).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al in view of Migdal et al does not disclose a position signal representing orientation or direction. In the same field of endeavor, Rekowski teaches: The method according to claim1, further comprising: generating a position signal which represents, as a function of time, information which characterizes an orientation or imaging direction of the beam or at least one of the beams or a respective orientation or imaging direction present at the respective point in time [p0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to supply a control technique for obtaining a time varying signal for mirror position and beam direction for improving accuracy.
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid) and Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288); and in further view of Wu et al (US Pub: 2020/0349729).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Zhang et al in view of Migdal et al does not specify a trained neural network. In the same field of endeavor, Wu et al teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the image information is evaluated using a trained artificial neural network [p0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use a trained neural network for improving efficiency.
9. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid), Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288), and Armstrong-Crews et al (US Pub: 20160004920); and in further view of Hendrix et al (US Pub: 2016/0266289).
Regarding claim 27, the rationale applied to the claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Claim 27 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 5.
Regarding claim 28, the rationale applied to the claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Claim 28 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 7.
10. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid), Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288), Armstrong-Crews et al (US Pub: 20160004920), and Hendrix et al (US Pub: 2016/0266289); and in further view of Zalevsky et al (US Pub: 20170004623).
Regarding claim 29, the rationale applied to the claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 29 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8.
11. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Wide-angle structured light with a scanning MEMS mirror in liquid), Migdal et al (US Patent: 6,549,288), Armstrong-Crews et al (US Pub: 20160004920), Hendrix et al (US Pub: 2016/0266289), and Zalevsky et al (US Pub: 20170004623); and in further view of Rekowski (US Pub: 2009/0206066)
Regarding claim 30, the rationale applied to the claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Claim 30 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 13-16, 23, 31, and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682