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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is in claim, not narrative form as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Further, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Namely, the title is misleading because the invention is directed to an imaging device with two sensors.
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 ), second 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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.
Namely the preamble would seem to require instantiation of modules recited, however, operation thereof by use of by is recited. Thus as recited the claim is indefinite because the operation of by should be removed to recite the modules claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 7, 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsui (US 2025/0148612).
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses an information processing apparatus that calculates distance information regarding a distance to a target irradiated with light with a predetermined pattern, (paragraph 0058, information processing apparatus calculates distance using ToF camera with NIR patterned illumination) the information processing apparatus comprising: an identification section that identifies at least one area in an image acquired using a frame- based vision sensor; (paragraphs 0072/0077, image recognition unit recognizes objects from image frame and identifies corresponding region around object for object tracking) a tracking section that tracks a target area corresponding to the area identified by the identification section, on a basis of an event signal output by an event-based sensor; (paragraph 0092, Figure 6, paragraph 0116, event camera tracks motion of identified region corresponding to identified object) and a calculation section that calculates, for each of the target areas, the distance information on a basis of a difference between an irradiation start time and a light reception time for the light with the predetermined pattern. (paragraph 0058, information processing apparatus calculates distance of object based on NIR light transmission/reception)
Independent claims 7 and 14-16 recite features similar to claim 1, or broader features and are therefore also anticipated by Matsui for reasons similar to claim 1.
To any extent it is contested that the system features of claim 7 are not identically disclosed by Matsui; in regard to claim 7, Matsui discloses: a frame-based vision sensor; an event-based sensor; (Figure 6, combination of ToF frame camera S206 and Event camera S404) an irradiation section that irradiates a target with light with a predetermined pattern; and a light receiving section that receives reflected light from the target. (paragraph 0058, ToF camera detects distance of object based on NIR light transmission/reception)
Regarding claim 3, Matsui discloses a generation section that constructs an image on a basis of the event signal; (paragraph 0059, image contour in frame acquired from event pixels) and a second calculation section that calculates complementary information that complements the distance information, on a basis of a change in a shape of the predetermined pattern in the image generated by the generation section. (paragraphs 0057/0058, three dimensional position based on NIR light pattern change)
Regarding claim 4, Matsui discloses wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving direction of the target. (paragraphs 0040 and 0057, motion and depth/distance of object in coordinate system is moving direction)
Regarding claim 5, Matsui discloses wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving distance of the target. (paragraph 0057, three dimensional position information over time on object is calculated which is movement of target)
Regarding dependent claims 9-11, claims 9-11 are system claims reciting system features similar to claims 3-5, respectively, and are therefore also anticipated by Matsui for reasons similar to claims 3-5.
Regarding claim 13, Matsui discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is a server. (paragraph 0167, information processing apparatus is a cloud/edge server)
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) 2, 6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Morozov (US 2020/0234458).
Regarding claim 2, Matsui fails to disclose the recited; however, Morozov teaches wherein the light with the predetermined pattern is infrared light. (paragraph 0077, light beams are IR beams)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use infrared light for structured illumination because such was commonly used in the art for structured illumination for depth recovery before the effective filing date as evinced by Morozov. (paragraph 0077)
Regarding dependent claim 8, claim 8 is a system claim reciting feature similar to claim 2, and is therefore also taught by Morozov for reasons similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Matsui fails to disclose the recited; however, Morozov teaches wherein the predetermined pattern includes a figure, and the change in the shape of the predetermined pattern includes at least one of a change in a size of the figure and a change in a position of the figure. (paragraph 0110, pattern is a square, and deformation of square used for depth determination)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a shape in structured illumination because such was commonly used in the art in structured illumination for depth recovery before the effective filing date as evinced by Morozov. (paragraph 0110)
Regarding dependent claim 12, claim 12 is a system claim reciting feature similar to claim 6, and is therefore also taught by Morozov for reasons similar to claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Willomitzer (US 2023/0368457) has a priority date shortly after the instant application and is cited for relative state of the art.
Cullen (US 2023/0060421) is next relevant art.
Chen (US 2021/0374983) is cited for implementation details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
December 12, 2025