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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Mor failed to disclose an expanding optical unit configured to illuminate a scene simultaneously with a spot pattern and with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses an illumination device for illuminating a scene as claimed including an imaging optical unit configured to project the light beams into the scene as spots in order to illuminate the scene with a spot pattern (If a spherical lens with the VCSEL die at its focus is used to project the light emitted by the VCSEL array, the resulting spot pattern in space will have the same shape as the VCSEL pattern; see at least paragraph 0038), and the imaging optical unit comprises an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams in order, with an expanded proportion of the light beams, to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile ( multiple replicas 52, 54, 56 of the pattern of the lines of the VCSEL array, fanning out over a predefined angular range; see at least paragraph 0041), and an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams into an expanded proportion of the light beams to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern and with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile (Lens 46 collects and projects an output beam 50 of the VCSEL emitters; see at least paragraph 0041). Mor further discloses that If a spherical lens with the VCSEL die at its focus is used to project the light emitted by the VCSEL array, the resulting spot pattern in space will have the same shape as the VCSEL pattern. On the other hand, if a cylindrical lens is used for projection, with the cylinder axis parallel to the VCSEL columns axis, a pattern of lines will be projected, wherein each line contains the integrated power from the M emitters in the column (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039). The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Mor discloses the claimed invention except for an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams into an expanded proportion of the light beams that amounts to less than 90% of a light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern and with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expanded proportion of the light beams amounts to less than 90% of a light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), imaging paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), imaging paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The specific limitation “wherein the expanding optical unit is further configured to transmit, without expansion, a remainder of the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources” as presented in claim 17 appears to be unclear. As shown in figure 6 of the instant application, the imaging optical unit 118 receives the light beams 108 from the first optical unit 110 and expands a proportion of less than 90% of the light intensity of the individual light beams 108 (see paragraph 0070). Even if a portion of the light beams is configured to transmit without expanding, a portion of the light beams appear to expand the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US 2014/0376092).
Regarding claim 1, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses an illumination device for illuminating a scene, the illumination device comprising:
an array of light sources configured to emit respective light beams (20; a VCSEL (Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser) array is fundamentally built by grouping a multitude of individual VCSEL light sources (emitters) together on a single semiconductor chip);
an imaging optical unit configured to project the light beams into the scene as spots in order to illuminate the scene with a spot pattern (If a spherical lens with the VCSEL die at its focus is used to project the light emitted by the VCSEL array, the resulting spot pattern in space will have the same shape as the VCSEL pattern; see at least paragraph 0038), and the imaging optical unit comprises an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams in order, with an expanded proportion of the light beams, to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile ( multiple replicas 52, 54, 56 of the pattern of the lines of the VCSEL array, fanning out over a predefined angular range; see at least paragraph 0041), and
an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams into an expanded proportion of the light beams to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern and with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile (Lens 46 collects and projects an output beam 50 of the VCSEL emitters; see at least paragraph 0041),
wherein the first imaging optical unit receives the light beams emitted by the light sources and directs the light beams onto the imaging expanding optical unit (figure 2A),
Mor discloses the claimed invention except for an expanding optical unit configured to partly expand the light beams into an expanded proportion of the light beams that amounts to less than 90% of a light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources to illuminate the scene simultaneously with the spot pattern and with a substantially homogeneous illumination profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expanded proportion of the light beams amounts to less than 90% of a light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Mor discloses the claimed invention except for the expanded proportion of the light beams amounts to less than 50% of the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expanded proportion of the light beams amounts to less than 50% of the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The limitation, “wherein the expanded proportion of the light beams amounts to less than 50% of the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Mor discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Mor is silent regarding wherein the imaging optical unit expands the light beams with an expansion angle that is equal to an angular distance, or an integral multiple thereof, between two light beams of the respective light beams. Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit expands the light beams with an expansion angle that is equal to an angular distance, or an integral multiple thereof, between two light beams of the respective light beams (A diffractive optical element (DOE) 44, supported by thin spacers 48, creates multiple replicas 52, 54, 56 of the pattern of the lines of the VCSEL array, fanning out over a predefined angular range; see at least paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light beams as taught by Mor in order to eliminate any intensity variation caused by the scene and ambient light.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation, “wherein the imaging optical unit expands the light beams with an expansion angle that is equal to an angular distance, or an integral multiple thereof, between two light beams” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 4, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the two light beams are directly adjacent light beams (the light beams before entering the projection lens 46).
Regarding claim 5, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit is a diffractive, refractive or diffusive optical unit (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44; see at least paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 6, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44; see at least paragraph 0041). However, Mor is silent regarding the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The limitation, “the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 7, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit that diffracts each individual light beam with a maximum diffraction angle that is equal to an angular distance, or an integral multiple thereof, between two light beams minus an aperture angle of each light beam (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44; see at least paragraph 0041).
The limitation, “the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 8, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit, and wherein a light intensity at an output of the diffractive optical unit in a respective zeroth order of diffraction is at least 50% greater than in an order of diffraction with a imaging highest light intensity (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44; see at least paragraph 0041).
The limitation, “the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 9, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the light intensity at the output of the diffractive optical unit in the respective zeroth order of diffraction is at least 150% greater than in the order of diffraction with the imaging highest light intensity (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44; see at least paragraph 0041).
The limitation, “the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 10, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the imaging optical unit is a refractive optical unit having an array of microlenses (diffractive optical element (DOE) 44 bends and diffracts the output beam; see at least paragraph 0041).
Mor discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above. However, Mor is silent wherein a fill factor of the microlenses in the array is less than 100%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fill factor of the microlenses in the array being less than 100%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The limitation, “the imaging optical unit is a diffractive optical unit configured in such a way that an angle between intensity maxima of adjacent orders of diffraction substantially corresponds to an aperture angle of each light beam, divided by an integer greater than or equal to 1” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 11, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses a camera system, comprising: a camera having an image sensor (see at least paragraph 0046), the illumination device as claimed in claim 1, wherein first pixels of the image sensor record a part of the scene illuminated with the substantially homogeneous illumination profile, and imaging pixels of the image sensor record the spot pattern projected into the scene.
The limitation, “wherein first pixels of the image sensor record a part of the scene illuminated with the substantially homogeneous illumination profile, and imaging pixels of the image sensor record the spot pattern projected into the scene” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 17, Mor (figures 2A-2C) discloses wherein the expanding optical unit is further configured to transmit, without expansion, a remainder of the light intensity of the light beams emitted by the light sources (portions of the light beam closer to the edge of the device).
Regarding claim 18, Mor discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Mor is silent regarding wherein the spots of the spot pattern comprise a greater light intensity than a light intensity of the substantially homogeneous illumination profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spots of the spot pattern comprising a greater light intensity than a light intensity of the substantially homogeneous illumination profile, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spots of the spot pattern comprising a greater light intensity than a light intensity of the substantially homogeneous illumination profile in order to project clear, high-contrast features over long distances or through scattering media while using less total continuous energy.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mor (US 2014/0376092) in view of Asano et al. (US 2015/0092019).
Regarding claim 12, Mor discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 11 above. However, Mor is silent regarding a controller. Asano et al. (figures 2-8B) teaches a camera controller (see at least paragraph 0057) configured to set exposure times of the image sensor, wherein the camera controller is configured to set a first exposure time in order, with the first pixels of the image sensor, to record the scene with the substantially homogeneous illumination profile, and to set a imaging exposure time, which is shorter than the first exposure time, in order, with the imaging pixels of the image sensor, to record the scene with the spot pattern projected into the scene (see at least paragraphs 0078-0079; figures 8A-8B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the controller as taught by Asano et al. in order to efficiently reduce the power consumption.
The limitation, “set exposure times of the image sensor, wherein the camera controller is configured to set a first exposure time in order, with the first pixels of the image sensor, to record the scene with the substantially homogeneous illumination profile, and to set a imaging exposure time, which is shorter than the first exposure time, in order, with the imaging pixels of the image sensor, to record the scene with the spot pattern projected into the scene” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 13, Asano et al. (figures 2-8B) teaches wherein a camera controller is configured to record a 2D image of the scene from signal values of the first pixels, and to determine 3D information about the scene from signal values of the imaging pixels by triangulation (see at least paragraph 0047).
The limitation, “configured to record a 2D image of the scene from signal values of the first pixels, and to determine 3D information about the scene from signal values of the imaging pixels by triangulation” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
The limitation, “by triangulation” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 14, Asano et al. (figures 2-8B) teaches wherein the camera controller is configured to at least partly replace signal values of the imaging pixels during the first exposure time with signal values of the imaging pixels during the imaging exposure time (see at least paragraph 0047).
The limitation, “wherein the camera controller is configured to at least partly replace signal values of the imaging pixels during the first exposure time with signal values of the imaging pixels during the imaging exposure time” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 15, Asano et al. (figures 2-8B) teaches wherein the camera is a time-of-flight camera (see at least paragraph 0050), and wherein the camera controller is configured to obtain a first 3D partial image of the scene from signal values of the first pixels and a imaging 3D partial image of the scene from signal values of the imaging pixels, wherein the camera controller is configured to combine the first 3D partial image and the imaging 3D partial image to form a 3D image of the scene (see at least paragraph 0112).
The limitation, “the camera controller is configured to obtain a first 3D partial image of the scene from signal values of the first pixels and a imaging 3D partial image of the scene from signal values of the imaging pixels, wherein the camera controller is configured to combine the first 3D partial image and the imaging 3D partial image to form a 3D image of the scene” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Mor discloses the structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights