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 .
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
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to claim 8 are Pau (US 20200182988) and Bruycker (Polarization Differential Visible Light Communication: Theory and Experimental Evaluation, 2020)
Pau teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7 (see rejection below),
Pau does not teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to receive data from the at least one source of the light and
to determine the predetermined cycle based on a bit rate of the data received from the at least one source of the light.
Pau teaches a polarization sensitive TOF system that calculates the Mueller matrix of a target object. Pau does not suggest or disclose the use of the laser to transmit data with a bit rate.
Further, Bruycker teaches:
A polarization based visible light communication scheme (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7).
Bruycker does not teach:
Generating a delayed signal in the photoelectric conversion devices corresponding to a difference in polarization directions. (as required by claim 7)
The prior art does not disclose or suggest: generating an electrical signal with a delay corresponding to a difference in polarization directions between each of the plurality of polarization filters such that the delay is based on a predetermined cycle for the at least one source and wherein the controller is further configured to receive data from the at least one source of the light and determine the predetermined cycle based on a bit rate. Thus, claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and thus would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims for the same reasons stated above.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “are different from each other by π/n°”, this appears to be a typo. For examining purposes, claim 10 is interpreted as stating “180/n°”
Claim 17 recites the limitation “are different from each other by π/n°”, this appears to be a typo. For examining purposes, claim 10 is interpreted as stating “180/n°”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kikuchi (US 20240212208).
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches:
An apparatus for estimating a position of a device (moving object #10 of Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of photoelectric devices configured to sense light and convert the sensed light into electric signals (image sensor #20 of Fig. 2, [88] “The image data is obtained by imaging the imaging scene via the imaging apparatus”);
a lens assembly (lens #12 of Fig. 2) configured to focus the light such that an image of at least one source of the light is directed towards the plurality of photoelectric devices ([54] “ The lens 12 causes an optical image of a subject including the target object to be formed on a light-receiving surface 20A of the image sensor 20.”, focusing shown in Fig. 2); and
a controller (controller #17 of Fig. 2) configured to estimate a distance of the device from a reference position based on the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices ([104] In a case of estimating a position and a posture of an object based on the position of the object in a three-dimensional space and the position of the object in an in-image coordinate system, the position and the posture of the object can be estimated by generally solving a perspective n-point problem (PnP problem).).
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of photoelectric devices are arranged on a two-dimensional plane (photodiodes #22 of Fig. 4 are arranged two-dimensionally, [76] “The pixel array layer 21 has multiple photodiodes 22 arranged two-dimensionally”) such that an intensity of the electrical signals vary based on a relative position of the at least one source of the light (the intensity of electric signals from an image sensor will inherently change when the relative position of the light source being imaged changes), and
the controller is further configured to estimate the distance from the reference position based on the intensity of the electric signals ([104] “The estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 by using an arithmetic expression in which the in-image position GP”, [101] “ The image processing unit 40B specifies an in-image position GP (hereinafter, also simply referred to as an “in-image position GP”) that is a position of the light emitter image 50 in an image, based on a result of specifying the light emitter image 50 Specifying the in-image position GP refers to calculating two-dimensional coordinates of a pixel forming the light emitter image 50 in the image indicated by the image data.” , the estimation is based on solving a PnP problem, with the points of the PnP being derived from the in-image coordinates which are derived from the intensity).
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
a plurality of polarization filters (filter elements #24A-C of Fig. 4) including, at least, a first polarization filter corresponding to a first photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices (filter element #24A corresponds to the pixel below it in Fig. 4) and a second polarization filter corresponding to a second photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices (filter element #24B corresponds to the pixel below it in Fig. 4)
wherein a polarization direction of the first polarization filter is different from a polarization direction of the second polarization filter (filter elements #24A and #24B of Fig. 4 are polarized 60 degrees from each other [78] “the first polarization filter element 24A transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 0° (that is, β1=0°. The second polarization filter element 24B transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 60° “).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to estimate an orientation angle of the device ([103] “In addition, the estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 based on the positional information of the reference station 36 and the in-image position GP. Estimating the position and the posture of the moving object 10 refers to calculating position coordinates of the moving object 10 in a three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system in a three-dimensional space, as well as a roll angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the moving object 10”) based on the intensity of the electric signals based on an oscillation direction of the light and the polarization direction of at least one of the plurality of polarization filters (the intensity of the light on the image sensor and thus the intensity of the electric signal is inherently based on the polarization direction of the light and the filters, and the estimation of the orientation angle is based on the intensity see claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the plurality of photoelectric devices comprise n photoelectric devices (3 photodiodes #22 shown in Fig. 2 below polarization filter elements #24A-C), and
the polarity of polarization filters is configured such that polarization directions of each of the plurality of polarization filters corresponding to a photoelectric device, of the n photoelectric devices, are different from each other by π/n° ([78] “The first polarization filter element 24A transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 0° (that is, β1=0°. The second polarization filter element 24B transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 60° (that is, β2=60°). The third polarization filter element 24C transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 120° (that is, β3=120°” ).
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi teaches:
A method for estimating a position of a device using an optical signal ([103] “In addition, the estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 based on the positional information of the reference station “), the method comprising:
converting the optical signal into a plurality of electric signals using a plurality of photoelectric devices included in the device (image sensor #20 of Fig. 2, [88] “The image data is obtained by imaging the imaging scene via the imaging apparatus”);
estimating a distance of the device from a reference position based on the plurality of electric signals ([104] “The estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 by using an arithmetic expression in which the in-image position GP”, [101] “ The image processing unit 40B specifies an in-image position GP (hereinafter, also simply referred to as an “in-image position GP”) that is a position of the light emitter image 50 in an image, based on a result of specifying the light emitter image 50 Specifying the in-image position GP refers to calculating two-dimensional coordinates of a pixel forming the light emitter image 50 in the image indicated by the image data.” , the estimation is based on solving a PnP problem, with the points of the PnP being derived from the in-image coordinates which are derived from the intensity); and
estimating an orientation angle of the device with respect to a reference direction based on the plurality of electric signals ([104] In a case of estimating a position and a posture of an object based on the position of the object in a three-dimensional space and the position of the object in an in-image coordinate system, the position and the posture of the object can be estimated by generally solving a perspective n-point problem (PnP problem).).
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the estimating the distance of the device from the reference position comprises:
determining a moving distance of an image cast by a lens assembly onto the plurality of photoelectric devices of a light source from which the optical signal is transmitted based on the electrical signals ([101] “specifies an in-image position GP (hereinafter, also simply referred to as an “in-image position GP”) that is a position of the light emitter image 50 in an image, based on a result of specifying the light emitter image 50. Specifying the in-image position GP refers to calculating two-dimensional coordinates of a pixel forming the light emitter image 50 in the image indicated by the image data.”);
and estimating the distance of the device from the reference position based on at least two of a height of the light source, a distance between the lens assembly and the plurality of photoelectric devices, or the moving distance of the image signals ([104] "The estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 by using an arithmetic expression in which the in-image position GP and the positional information (for example, three-dimensional orthogonal coordinates) of the reference station 36 corresponding to the light emitter 37 are used as independent variables and the position coordinates and Euler angles of the moving object 10 in the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system are used as dependent variables.", the coordinates of the light source (and thus it’s height) and the moving distance of the image (in-image position GP) are used to estimate the distance);
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein: the estimating of the orientation angle of the device comprises:
estimating the orientation angle based on intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([103] “In addition, the estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 based on the positional information of the reference station 36 and the in-image position GP. Estimating the position and the posture of the moving object 10 refers to calculating position coordinates of the moving object 10 in a three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system in a three-dimensional space, as well as a roll angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the moving object 10”) and a polarization direction of a polarization filter at each of the plurality of photoelectric devices (the intensity of the light on the image sensor and thus the intensity of the electric signal is inherently based on the polarization direction of the light and the filters, and the estimation of the orientation angle is based on the intensity see claim 2).
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein
the plurality of photoelectric devices comprises n photoelectric devices, and polarization directions of each of polarization filters corresponding to the n photoelectric devices are different from each other by π/n° ([78] “The first polarization filter element 24A transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 0° (that is, β1=0°. The second polarization filter element 24B transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 60° (that is, β2=60°). The third polarization filter element 24C transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 120° (that is, β3=120°”.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (Polarization-Based Visible Light Positioning, 2019)
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches:
An optical communication system estimating a position of a device (Fig. 3 shows an optical communication and positioning system), the optical communication system comprising:
a transmitting device configured to generate a light signal by modulating data (Fig. 3 Section 2.2. Modulating Light’s Polarization “we can tune the applied voltage to modulate the polarization and encode‘0’and‘1’using dark and bright states.”) and transmitting a linearly polarized light signal by modulating a polarization state of the light signal (Fig. 3 Section 2.3“The lower sub-figure illustrates the VLC design of PIXEL. We convert a lamp into PIXEL’s VLC transmitter by adding a polarizer and a liquid crystal layer. The transmitter thus emits polarized light. Light’s polarization can be changed by the voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer.”); and
a receiving device configured to
receive the linearly polarized light signal (Fig. 3 shows the receiver receiving the linearly polarized signal),
convert the received light signal into an electric signal using a plurality of photoelectric devices (Image sensor shown in Fig. 9, 5.1 evaluation setup “From the results, our system achieves the SNR higher than 15dB under 120 160 resolution within 13 m”), and
estimate a position of the device using the electric signal transmitted through a plurality of channels connected to the plurality of photoelectric devices (Section 3.2.1 “Then the location of the PIXEL’s client is just x1;x2;x3 and the orientation of the client can be obtained by substituting u into(6)” and “X is the location of the center of the camera lens, and we also treated X as the location of the client. The transmitter anchors are located at Pk with corresponding image points Ik on the image sensor. As the light beam is a straight line, the direction of PkX−→− and XIk−→− must be the same:”, the anchor image points are used and the image is generated by the electric signal ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau.
Regarding claim 1, Pau teaches:
An apparatus for estimating a position of a device (#400 of Fig. 4A), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of photoelectric devices configured to sense light and convert the sensed light into electric signals (detector array #700 of Fig. 7(A), [35] “The electrical signals that are produced in response to the detection of light incident on the detector (such as a CMOS sensor, a photomultiplier tube, etc.) are processed to produce detection information corresponding to the incident light”);
a lens assembly configured to focus the light such that an image of at least one source of the light is directed towards the plurality of photoelectric devices (#403 of Fig. 4(A), lens, the image of the light source is reflected off the object and focused by the lens); and
a controller (controller and power source #404 of Fig. 4(A)) configured to estimate a distance of the device from a reference position based on the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices ([35] “The electrical signals…are processed to produce detection information corresponding to the incident light, which are further processed to determine the ToF, to measure distance”)
Regarding claim 2, Pau teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of photoelectric devices are arranged on a two-dimensional plane (Fig. 7(A) shows the detector array #700 arranged in a two dimensional grid) such that an intensity of the electrical signals vary based on a relative position of the at least one source of the light (The intensity of the electric signals inherently varies based on the position of the light source, as any change in distance between the light source and the detectors would change the received intensity), and
the controller is further configured to estimate the distance from the reference position based on the intensity of the electric signals ([35] “The electrical signals…are processed to produce detection information corresponding to the incident light, which are further processed to determine the ToF, to measure distance”)
Regarding claim 3, Pau teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising:
a plurality of polarization filters including, at least, a first polarization filter corresponding to a first photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices and a second polarization filter corresponding to a second photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices wherein a polarization direction of the first polarization filter is different from a polarization direction of the second polarization filter (Fig. 7(C) shows polarization filters 711-714, which would each correspond to a detector in a sub-array, [47] “The detector array 700 includes detector elements 701 having the shape of a square in a square grid configuration. Each element can include one or more detector subarrays. FIG. 7(B) illustrates an example of a two-by-two detector sub-array 710 that includes three linear polarizers 711, 714, 715, and one circular polarizer 712. The sub-array can, for example be placed on top of element 701.”).
Regarding claim 7, Pau teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein, the plurality of photoelectric devices is further configured to generate an electric signal with a delay corresponding to a difference in polarization directions between each of the plurality of polarization filters corresponding to the plurality of photoelectric devices such that the delay is based on a predetermined cycle for the at least one source of the light changing a polarization direction of the light (Fig. 6 shows a modulation pattern for the light source, Fig. 5(B) shows how the DOCP of the reflected light varies sinusoidally, the light modulated in Fig. 6 with DOCP changing sinusoidally would result in the reflected light also changing in DOCP sinusoidally, when received by the sub-array shown in Fig. 7(D), the detectors would have sinusoidally varying intensity values delayed based on their polarization direction).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kondo et al. (US 20190166342).
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 3,
Kikuchi does not teach:
wherein when estimating the distance from the reference position, the controller is further configured to compensate for the intensity of the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices based on information about the polarization direction of at least one of the plurality of polarization filters
However, Kondo teaches:
wherein when estimating the distance from the reference position, the controller is further configured to compensate for the intensity of the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices ([67-68] “Equation (3) is a correction equation used during the correction process on the polarized images. In Equation (3), a pixel value Iij is the pixel value of a pixel at a pixel position (i,j) in the polarized images acquired by the polarized image acquisition section 20 … Cij=(Iij−BK)×GAij ... The correction processing section 40 calculates a pixel value Cij,“) based on information about the polarization direction of at least one of the plurality of polarization filters ([75-76] “the correction processing section 40 calculates the polarized image correction information GAij in accordance with Equation (7) by using the variation correction information GVij … GAij=GVij×GSij×Gwij … In a case where the variation correction information for each polarization direction is stored in the correction information storage section 30, the correction processing section 40 acquires the variation correction information regarding the polarization direction of a correction target pixel. ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of Kikuchi to use polarization correction before performing detection similar to Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the quality of the polarized images (Kondo: [189]), which would increase the accuracy of the position estimation.
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 17,
Kikuchi does not teach, but Kondo does teach:
further comprising: compensating for intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([67-68] “Equation (3) is a correction equation used during the correction process on the polarized images. In Equation (3), a pixel value Iij is the pixel value of a pixel at a pixel position (i,j) in the polarized images acquired by the polarized image acquisition section 20 … Cij=(Iij−BK)×GAij ... The correction processing section 40 calculates a pixel value Cij,“) , before the estimating of the distance of the device from the reference position ([168] “the integrated controller 7600 included in an exemplary application depicted in FIG. 22 includes the correction information storage section 30 and the correction processing section 40. This configuration enables the imaging sections 7410, 7910, 7912, 7914, 7916, 7918 to acquire polarized images having insignificant sensitivity variations. Therefore, the acquired polarized images can be used, for example, for driving assistance and driving control “), based on the polarization directions of each of the polarization filters of the plurality of photoelectric device ([75-76] “the correction processing section 40 calculates the polarized image correction information GAij in accordance with Equation (7) by using the variation correction information GVij … GAij=GVij×GSij×Gwij … In a case where the variation correction information for each polarization direction is stored in the correction information storage section 30, the correction processing section 40 acquires the variation correction information regarding the polarization direction of a correction target pixel. ). and wherein the estimating of the distance of the device from the reference position comprises estimating the distance of the device from the reference position based a result of the compensating of the intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([168] “the integrated controller 7600 included in an exemplary application depicted in FIG. 22 includes the correction information storage section 30 and the correction processing section 40. This configuration enables the imaging sections 7410, 7910, 7912, 7914, 7916, 7918 to acquire polarized images having insignificant sensitivity variations. Therefore, the acquired polarized images can be used, for example, for driving assistance and driving control “)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of Kikuchi to use polarization correction before performing detection similar to Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the quality of the polarized images (Kondo: [189]), which would increase the accuracy of the position estimation.
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kokubo et al. (US 20060256207).
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi teaches:
The apparatus of claim 5,
Kikuchi does not teach:
wherein when estimating the orientation angle, the controller is further configured to scale the intensity of the electric signals based on an average value of the electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices.
However, Kokubo teaches:
wherein when estimating the orientation angle, the controller is further configured to scale the intensity of the electric signals based on an average value of the electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices ([56] “The exposure control circuit 35 receives the average brightness Y1, which is provided from the divider 10, and a target brightness T, which is preset in a storage unit, such as a register. The exposure control circuit 35 provides the amplifier 3 with a gain adjustment signal A1, the timing control circuit 34 with an integration (exposure) time adjustment signal A2 and a maximum integration time adjustment signal A4, based on the difference between the target brightness T and the average brightness Y1.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the image sensor of Kikuchi to use a gain control circuit similar to Kokubo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the distance estimation by improving the contrast in the image.
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 11,
Kikuchi does not teach:
further comprising: scaling intensities of the plurality of electric signals, before the estimating of the orientation angle, based on an average value of the plurality of electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices, and wherein the estimating of the orientation angle comprises estimating the orientation angle of the device with respect to the reference position based on a result of the scaling of the intensities of the plurality of electric signals.
However, Kokubo teaches:
further comprising: scaling intensities of the plurality of electric signals, before the estimating of the orientation angle, based on an average value of the plurality of electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices, and wherein the estimating of the orientation angle comprises estimating the orientation angle of the device with respect to the reference position based on a result of the scaling of the intensities of the plurality of electric signals. ([56] “The exposure control circuit 35 receives the average brightness Y1, which is provided from the divider 10, and a target brightness T, which is preset in a storage unit, such as a register. The exposure control circuit 35 provides the amplifier 3 with a gain adjustment signal A1, the timing control circuit 34 with an integration (exposure) time adjustment signal A2 and a maximum integration time adjustment signal A4, based on the difference between the target brightness T and the average brightness Y1.”).
Additionally, Kikuchi teaches:
estimating the orientation angle of the device with respect to the reference position based on image data ([104] In a case of estimating a position and a posture of an object based on the position of the object in a three-dimensional space and the position of the object in an in-image coordinate system, the position and the posture of the object can be estimated by generally solving a perspective n-point problem (PnP problem).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the image sensor of Kikuchi to use a gain control circuit similar to Kokubo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the distance estimation by improving the contrast in the image.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ho et al. (US 20170276767).
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 12,
Kikuchi does not teach:
wherein information on the height of the light source is included in data recovered by demodulating the optical signal
However, Ho teaches:
wherein information on the coordinates of the light source is included in data recovered by demodulating the optical signal ([35 “The location information can be transmitted to the mobile device through various means, for example, though a WIFI connection with an access point or though the signals from the light sources”]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of Kikuchi to include coordinates in the light data similar to Ho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for multiple light sources of the same color to be used, increasing the versatility of the estimation system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Li (US 20240401953)
Regarding claim 14, Kikuchi teaches:
The method of claim 12,
Kikuchi does not teach:
wherein the determining of the moving distance of the image comprises: determining an orthogonal coordinates of the image using at least one of a maximum value or an average value of the plurality of electric signals of respective channels connected to the plurality of photoelectric devices.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the determining of the moving distance of the image comprises: determining an orthogonal coordinates of the image ([33] “If a determination is made that a pixel cluster represents a star, centroiding processing is used to determine the “position” of the candidate star in the camera field of view”) using at least one of a maximum value or an average value of the plurality of electric signals of respective channels connected to the plurality of photoelectric devices ([33]: “The star tracker 3 also includes an averaging and motion compensation module 14 which is configured to average the output of the camera over time to reduce the impact of noise”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of Kikuchi to use the average value of the electric signals when calculating the orthogonal coordinates of the image similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the impact of noise, thus increasing the accuracy of the position estimation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Li as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Meyers (US 20020146176) and Boyce (US 5208673)
Regarding claim 15, Kikuchi, as modified above, teaches
The method of claim 14 wherein the determining of the orthogonal coordinates of the image comprises: determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the average value of the plurality of electric signals (see above)
Kikuchi does not teach:
wherein the determining of the orthogonal coordinates of the image comprises: determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the maximum value of the plurality of electric signals based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being not substantially the same;
or determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the average value of the plurality of electric signals based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same.
However, Boyce teaches:
or determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the average value of the plurality of electric signals based on the regions being similar (“If MAD.sub.min for a block exceeds C, it is probably because of a scene change or for a block on the edge of a frame when a camera is panned and not due to motion so that it should not be used in the average.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation apparatus of Kikuchi to only average similar regions similar to Boyce with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing motion blur.
Kikuchi, Li, and Boyce do not teach:
based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same.
However, Meyers teaches:
Determining similar images based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same ([24] “ the minimum and maximum region intensity sum from each cell may also be stored and used in addition to the intensity angle” and [33] “one method for searching a database of cell representation data involves the identification of candidate images that have at least some similarity with the current target image. This step selects as candidate images all of the images in the database that have at least one point of similarity with the target image Every image that passes this test has a cell 30 with cell representation data 38 that is the same as, or within a specified deviation from, the cell representation data 38 of the corresponding cell 30 in the target image”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of Kikuchi to use the minimum values of blocks as a similarity measure similar to Meyers with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of quickly determining similarity. In this combination, the estimation system of Kikuchi would use average values similar to Li, based on the regions of the image being averaged being “similar” similar to Boyce, where the similarity is determined using the minimum value similar to Meyers.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19406222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the 222 application anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
222 Application
An apparatus for estimating a position of a device, the apparatus comprising:
(claim 1) A position estimation apparatus comprising:
a plurality of photoelectric devices configured to sense light and convert the sensed light into electric signals;
(claim 1) a plurality of photoelectric devices, each of the plurality of photoelectric devices configured to convert at least one of the plurality of third optical signals into a corresponding electrical signal of a plurality of electrical signals;
a lens assembly configured to focus the light such that an image of at least one source of the light is directed towards the plurality of photoelectric devices
(claim 2) a lens configured to focus the first optical signal and to transmit the first optical signal to the filter.
and a controller configured to estimate a distance of the device from a reference position based on the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices.
(claim 1) and a processing circuitry configured to estimate a position of the position estimation apparatus based on the plurality of electrical signals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 2,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 1,
(see above rejection)
and the controller is further configured to estimate the distance from the reference position based on the intensity of the electric signals.
(claim 1) processing circuitry configured to estimate a position of the position estimation apparatus based on the plurality of electrical signals.
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
wherein the plurality of photoelectric devices are arranged on a two-dimensional plane (photodiodes #22 of Fig. 4 are arranged two-dimensionally, [76] “The pixel array layer 21 has multiple photodiodes 22 arranged two-dimensionally”)such that an intensity of the electrical signals vary based on a relative position of the at least one source of the light (the intensity of electric signals from an image sensor will inherently change when the relative position of the light source being imaged changes)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photoelectric devices of claim 2 of 222 to be arranged on a 2D plane such that intensity of the electrical signals vary based on a relative position of the light source similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for position detection using the PnP algorithm.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 3,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 2,
(see above rejection)
further comprising: a plurality of polarization filters
(claim 1) a plurality of polarization filters
wherein a polarization direction of the first polarization filter is different from a polarization direction of the second polarization filter.
(claim 1) configured to have different polarization directions
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
a first polarization filter corresponding to a first photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices (filter element #24A corresponds to the pixel below it in Fig. 4) and a second polarization filter corresponding to a second photoelectric device of the plurality of photoelectric devices (filter element #24B corresponds to the pixel below it in Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polarization filters of the 222 application to include a first and second polarization filter corresponding to a second photoelectric device similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for polarization based light modulation, which can increase the SNR of the device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 3,
(see above rejection)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to estimate an orientation angle of the device ([103] “In addition, the estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 based on the positional information of the reference station 36 and the in-image position GP. Estimating the position and the posture of the moving object 10 refers to calculating position coordinates of the moving object 10 in a three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system in a three-dimensional space, as well as a roll angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the moving object 10”) based on the intensity of the electric signals based on an oscillation direction of the light and the polarization direction of at least one of the plurality of polarization filters (the intensity of the light on the image sensor and thus the intensity of the electric signal is inherently based on the polarization direction of the light and the filters, and the estimation of the orientation angle is based on the intensity see claim 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation apparatus of the 222 application to estimate an orientation angle based on the intensity based on a polarization direction of the filters similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the position data by also including orientation angle.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 10,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 3,
(see above rejection)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
the plurality of photoelectric devices comprise n photoelectric devices (3 photodiodes #22 shown in Fig. 2 below polarization filter elements #24A-C), and
the polarity of polarization filters is configured such that polarization directions of each of the plurality of polarization filters corresponding to a photoelectric device, of the n photoelectric devices, are different from each other by π/n° ([78] “The first polarization filter element 24A transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 0° (that is, β1=0°. The second polarization filter element 24B transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 60° (that is, β2=60°). The third polarization filter element 24C transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 120° (that is, β3=120°” ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of the 222 application to use photoelectric devices different from each other by π/n° similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for subtraction of unwanted signals from similarly colored light sources.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Kondo.
Regarding claim 4,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 3,
(see above rejection)
The 222’ application does not teach, but Kondo does teach:
wherein when estimating the distance from the reference position, the controller is further configured to compensate for the intensity of the electric signals received from the plurality of photoelectric devices ([67-68] “Equation (3) is a correction equation used during the correction process on the polarized images. In Equation (3), a pixel value Iij is the pixel value of a pixel at a pixel position (i,j) in the polarized images acquired by the polarized image acquisition section 20 … Cij=(Iij−BK)×GAij ... The correction processing section 40 calculates a pixel value Cij,“) based on information about the polarization direction of at least one of the plurality of polarization filters ([75-76] “the correction processing section 40 calculates the polarized image correction information GAij in accordance with Equation (7) by using the variation correction information GVij … GAij=GVij×GSij×Gwij … In a case where the variation correction information for each polarization direction is stored in the correction information storage section 30, the correction processing section 40 acquires the variation correction information regarding the polarization direction of a correction target pixel. ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the distance estimation of the 222 application to use polarization correction similar to Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the quality of the polarized images (Kondo: [189]), which would increase the accuracy of the position estimation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Kokubo.
Regarding claim 6,
Instant Application
222 Application
The apparatus of claim 5,
(see above rejection)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kokubo does teach:
wherein when estimating the orientation angle, the controller is further configured to scale the intensity of the electric signals based on an average value of the electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices ([56] “The exposure control circuit 35 receives the average brightness Y1, which is provided from the divider 10, and a target brightness T, which is preset in a storage unit, such as a register. The exposure control circuit 35 provides the amplifier 3 with a gain adjustment signal A1, the timing control circuit 34 with an integration (exposure) time adjustment signal A2 and a maximum integration time adjustment signal A4, based on the difference between the target brightness T and the average brightness Y1.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation apparatus of the 222 application to use a gain control circuit similar to Kokubo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the distance estimation by improving the contrast in the image.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of the 222 application anticipates claim 11 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 11,
Instant Application
222 Application
A method for estimating a position of a device using an optical signal
(claim 16) A position estimation system comprising
the method comprising: converting the optical signal into a plurality of electric signals using a plurality of photoelectric devices included in the device;
(claim 16) a plurality of photoelectric devices, each of the plurality of photoelectric devices configured to convert at least one of the plurality of third optical signals into a corresponding electrical signal of a plurality of electrical signals,
estimating a distance of the device from a reference position based on the plurality of electric signals
(claim 16) estimate a position of the position estimation apparatus based on the plurality of electrical signals.
and estimating an orientation angle of the device with respect to a reference direction based on the plurality of electric signals.
(claim 18) estimate an orientation angle of the position estimation apparatus based on the plurality of electrical signals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12, 16, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi.
Regarding claim 12,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 11
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
wherein the estimating the distance of the device from the reference position comprises: determining a moving distance of an image cast by a lens assembly onto the plurality of photoelectric devices of a light source from which the optical signal is transmitted based on the electrical signals ([101] “specifies an in-image position GP (hereinafter, also simply referred to as an “in-image position GP”) that is a position of the light emitter image 50 in an image, based on a result of specifying the light emitter image 50. Specifying the in-image position GP refers to calculating two-dimensional coordinates of a pixel forming the light emitter image 50 in the image indicated by the image data.”);
and estimating the distance of the device from the reference position based on at least two of a height of the light source, a distance between the lens assembly and the plurality of photoelectric devices, or the moving distance of the image signals ([104] "The estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 by using an arithmetic expression in which the in-image position GP and the positional information (for example, three-dimensional orthogonal coordinates) of the reference station 36 corresponding to the light emitter 37 are used as independent variables and the position coordinates and Euler angles of the moving object 10 in the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system are used as dependent variables.", the coordinates of the light source (and thus it’s height) and the moving distance of the image (in-image position GP) are used to estimate the distance);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to use a moving distance of the image and the height of a light source to calculate position similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for accurate position determination using the perspective n point algorithm
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 11
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
the estimating of the orientation angle of the device comprises: estimating the orientation angle based on intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([103] “In addition, the estimation unit 40C estimates the position and the posture of the moving object 10 based on the positional information of the reference station 36 and the in-image position GP. Estimating the position and the posture of the moving object 10 refers to calculating position coordinates of the moving object 10 in a three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system in a three-dimensional space, as well as a roll angle, a pitch angle, and a yaw angle of the moving object 10”) and a polarization direction of a polarization filter at each of the plurality of photoelectric devices (the intensity of the light on the image sensor and thus the intensity of the electric signal is inherently based on the polarization direction of the light and the filters, and the estimation of the orientation angle is based on the intensity see claim 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photoelectric devices of claim 2 of the 222 application to be arranged on a 2D plane such that intensity of the electrical signals vary based on a relative position of the light source similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for position detection using the PnP algorithm.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 17,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 11
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kikuchi does teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of photoelectric devices comprises n photoelectric devices, and polarization directions of each of polarization filters corresponding to the n photoelectric devices are different from each other by π/n° ([78] “The first polarization filter element 24A transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 0° (that is, β1=0°. The second polarization filter element 24B transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 60° (that is, β2=60°). The third polarization filter element 24C transmits light having an azimuthal angle of 120° (that is, β3=120°”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation system of the 222 application to use photoelectric devices different from each other by π/n° similar to Kikuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for subtraction of unwanted signals from similarly colored light sources.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ho.
Regarding claim 13,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 12
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Ho teaches:
wherein information on the coordinates of the light source is included in data recovered by demodulating the optical signal ([35] “The location information can be transmitted to the mobile device through various means, for example, though a WIFI connection with an access point or though the signals from the light sources”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to include coordinates in the light data similar to Ho with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for position detection over a larger area.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 14,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 12
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Li does teach:
wherein the determining of the moving distance of the image comprises: determining an orthogonal coordinates of the image ([33] “If a determination is made that a pixel cluster represents a star, centroiding processing is used to determine the “position” of the candidate star in the camera field of view”) using at least one of a maximum value or an average value of the plurality of electric signals of respective channels connected to the plurality of photoelectric devices ([33]: “The star tracker 3 also includes an averaging and motion compensation module 14 which is configured to average the output of the camera over time to reduce the impact of noise”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application use the average value of the electric signals when calculating the orthogonal coordinates of the image similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing the impact of noise, thus increasing the accuracy of the position estimation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi and Li as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Boyce and Meyers.
Regarding claim 15,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 12
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach:
wherein the determining of the orthogonal coordinates of the image comprises: determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the maximum value of the plurality of electric signals based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being not substantially the same;
or determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the average value of the plurality of electric signals based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same.
However, Boyce teaches:
or determining the orthogonal coordinates of the image using the average value of the plurality of electric signals based on the regions being similar (“If MAD.sub.min for a block exceeds C, it is probably because of a scene change or for a block on the edge of a frame when a camera is panned and not due to motion so that it should not be used in the average.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to only average similar regions similar to Boyce with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing motion blur.
The 222 application, Li, and Boyce do not teach:
based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same.
However, Meyers teaches:
Determining similar images based on minimum values of the plurality of electric signals of the respective channels being substantially the same ([24] “ the minimum and maximum region intensity sum from each cell may also be stored and used in addition to the intensity angle” and [33] “one method for searching a database of cell representation data involves the identification of candidate images that have at least some similarity with the current target image. This step selects as candidate images all of the images in the database that have at least one point of similarity with the target image Every image that passes this test has a cell 30 with cell representation data 38 that is the same as, or within a specified deviation from, the cell representation data 38 of the corresponding cell 30 in the target image”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to use the minimum values of blocks as a similarity measure similar to Meyers with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of quickly determining similarity. In this combination, the estimation system method of the 222 application would use average values similar to Li, based on the regions of the image being averaged being similar similar to Boyce, where the similarity is determined using the minimum value similar to Meyers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kikuchi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kondo.
Regarding claim 18,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 17
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kondo does teach:
further comprising: compensating for intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([67-68] “Equation (3) is a correction equation used during the correction process on the polarized images. In Equation (3), a pixel value Iij is the pixel value of a pixel at a pixel position (i,j) in the polarized images acquired by the polarized image acquisition section 20 … Cij=(Iij−BK)×GAij ... The correction processing section 40 calculates a pixel value Cij,“) , before the estimating of the distance of the device from the reference position ([168] “the integrated controller 7600 included in an exemplary application depicted in FIG. 22 includes the correction information storage section 30 and the correction processing section 40. This configuration enables the imaging sections 7410, 7910, 7912, 7914, 7916, 7918 to acquire polarized images having insignificant sensitivity variations. Therefore, the acquired polarized images can be used, for example, for driving assistance and driving control “), based on the polarization directions of each of the polarization filters of the plurality of photoelectric device ([75-76] “the correction processing section 40 calculates the polarized image correction information GAij in accordance with Equation (7) by using the variation correction information GVij … GAij=GVij×GSij×Gwij … In a case where the variation correction information for each polarization direction is stored in the correction information storage section 30, the correction processing section 40 acquires the variation correction information regarding the polarization direction of a correction target pixel. ). and wherein the estimating of the distance of the device from the reference position comprises estimating the distance of the device from the reference position based a result of the compensating of the intensities of the plurality of electric signals ([168] “the integrated controller 7600 included in an exemplary application depicted in FIG. 22 includes the correction information storage section 30 and the correction processing section 40. This configuration enables the imaging sections 7410, 7910, 7912, 7914, 7916, 7918 to acquire polarized images having insignificant sensitivity variations. Therefore, the acquired polarized images can be used, for example, for driving assistance and driving control “)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to use polarization correction before performing detection similar to Kondo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the quality of the polarized images (Kondo: [189]), which would increase the accuracy of the position estimation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19406222 in view of Kokubo.
Regarding claim 19,
Instant Application
222 Application
The method of claim 11
(see rejection above)
The 222 application does not teach, but Kokubo does teach:
further comprising: scaling intensities of the plurality of electric signals, before the estimating of the orientation angle, based on an average value of the plurality of electric signals received from each of the plurality of photoelectric devices, and wherein the estimating of the orientation angle comprises estimating the orientation angle of the device with respect to the reference position based on a result of the scaling of the intensities of the plurality of electric signals. ([56] “The exposure control circuit 35 receives the average brightness Y1, which is provided from the divider 10, and a target brightness T, which is preset in a storage unit, such as a register. The exposure control circuit 35 provides the amplifier 3 with a gain adjustment signal A1, the timing control circuit 34 with an integration (exposure) time adjustment signal A2 and a maximum integration time adjustment signal A4, based on the difference between the target brightness T and the average brightness Y1.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the estimation method of the 222 application to use a gain control circuit similar to Kokubo with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the accuracy of the distance estimation by improving the contrast in the image.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 19406222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the 222 application anticipates claim 11 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 20,
Instant Application
222 Application
An optical communication system estimating a position of a device, the optical communication system comprising:
(claim 16) A position estimation system comprising:
a transmitting device configured to generate a light signal by modulating data and transmitting a linearly polarized light signal by modulating a polarization state of the light signal;
(claim 16) a light source configured to output light; a rotating polarization filter configured to be rotate and to polarize the light output from the light source to output a first optical signal; and (claim 19) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to recover transmit data of the first optical signal based on the plurality of electrical signals.
and a receiving device configured to receive the linearly polarized light signal
(claim 16) a position estimation apparatus comprising a filter configured to have an attenuation ratio that varies depending on a transmission point of an optical signal and to output a second optical signal by attenuating the first optical signal according to the attenuation ratio
convert the received light signal into an electric signal using a plurality of photoelectric devices
a plurality of photoelectric devices, each of the plurality of photoelectric devices configured to convert at least one of the plurality of third optical signals into a corresponding electrical signal
and estimate a position of the device using the electric signal transmitted through a plurality of channels connected to the plurality of photoelectric devices.
and a processing circuitry configured to estimate a position of the position estimation apparatus based on the plurality of electrical signals.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hudman et al. (US 20210247842) teaches a similar positioning system using polarization and a quad-cell to perform angle of arrival calculations, but with the distinction of using a spatially varying polarizer and not n polarized filters which are 180/n° apart from each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights