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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because clean copy of the abstract of the amended abstract is needed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/5/26. These drawings are Figure 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meinherz et al (US Pub 2016/0124089 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Meinherz et al teaches an electronic device comprising circuitry configured to update a camera configuration based on camera mode feedback information obtained by relating depth information (Paragraph 0057, 0121) obtained from Time of Flight (ToF) measurements (Figs. 1A, 1B; Paragraph 0039-0040) with a reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) model of a scene (Figs.4, 19; Paragraph 0056-0057, 0121, 0125).
Regarding Claim 2, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device, wherein the camera configuration is described by configuration settings of an imaging sensor (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0065) and/or an illumination unit of an iToF camera (Fig. 1A, 1B; Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 3, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to reconstruct and/or update the reconstructed 3D model of the scene based on the depth information obtained from ToF measurements (Paragraph 0057, 0121, 0125).
Regarding Claim 4, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to determine an overlap between the depth information and the reconstructed 3D model of the scene, and to update the camera configuration based on the overlap (Paragraph 0039, 0057, 0121, 0125).
Regarding Claims 5-6, 8-9, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to decide, based on the overlap, whether or not the camera configuration is to be updated; wherein the circuitry is configured to improve a signal-to-noise ratio by updating the camera configuration; wherein the camera mode feedback information controlling the camera configuration comprises an effective range of the scene; wherein the camera mode feedback information controlling the camera configuration comprises a saturation value the ToF signal amplitude. (Paragraph 0039-0040, 0053, 0107).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to determine unwrapping feedback based on the reconstructed 3D model of the scene; wherein the circuitry is configured to determine unwrapping feedback for a pixel based on the reconstructed 3D model of the scene, and an estimated camera pose; wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a wrapping index for a pixel based on the unwrapping feedback for the pixel. (It describes to correct (by unwrapping) ToF phase measurements by ToF pulse measurements when a new object is detected to enter the scene (Figs. 10-13; Paragraph 0086-0087).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to determine model feedback based on an overlap between the depth information from ToF measurements and the reconstructed 3D model of the scene; wherein the circuitry is configured to update parts of the reconstructed 3D model of the scene (Paragraph 0056-0057, 0121, 0125).
Regarding Claim 15, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the circuitry is configured to estimate a camera pose and to determine an overlap between the reconstructed 3D model of the scene and a current frame viewed from the estimated pose of the camera corresponding to the current frame. (Paragraph 0039-0040, 0053).
Regarding Claim 16, the method Claim 16 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 17, the CRM Claim 17 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Meinherz et al teaches the electronic device wherein the reconstructed 3D model is a triangle mesh grid; wherein the reconstructed 3D model is a voxel representation of a point cloud; wherein the reconstructed 3D model is an occupancy grid. (Paragraph 0056-0057, 0108).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624