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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 12-22 of US Application No. 18/866,350, filed on 15 November 2024, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant canceled claims 1-11 and added claims 12-22 via preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 15 November 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
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. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “depth estimation unit configured to determine” and “computer vision unit configured to calculate” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 12-18 are 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.
Claim limitations “depth estimation unit configured to determine” and “computer vision unit configured to calculate” (claim 12) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 13-18 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1 and also fail to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 12-18 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Guo et al. (Compact single-shot metalens depth sensors inspired by eyes of jumping spiders, “Guo”).
Regarding claims 12, 19, and 22, Applicant admits that the prior art teaches:
a monocular camera [ ] (approaches based on monocular images – see Applicant’s specification at 1:25-27); and
a depth estimation unit configured to determine a depth map of the scene [ ] (methods for estimating a depth map – see Applicant’s specification at 1:14-17; approaches based on monocular images – see Applicant’s specification at 1:25-27); and
a computer vision unit configured to calculate a navigation trajectory from the first image of the scene and the depth map of the scene (calculation of a navigation trajectory can be implemented using different computer algorithms that take as input an image of a scene and a depth map of the same scene to provide as output a navigation solution – see Applicant’s specification at 1:10-13).
Applicant’s admitted prior art fails to teach simultaneously acquire a first image of a scene with a first depth of field and at least one second image of the scene with a second depth of field smaller than the first depth of field; determine a depth map of the scene from the first image of the scene and the at least one second image of the scene.
However, Guo teaches:
simultaneously acquire a first image of a scene with a first depth of field and at least one second image of the scene with a second depth of field smaller than the first depth of field (the metalens is designed to incorporate the phase profiles of 2 off-axis lenses with different in-focus distances on a shared aperture – see at least pg. 22962 at ‘Metalens Design and Characterization’; metalens depth sensor is single shot – see at least pg. 22959, ¶ 3; 2 differently defocused images can be captured simultaneously side by side on the photosensor in a single shot – see at least pg. 22960 at ¶ 1);
determine a depth map of the scene from the first image of the scene and the at least one second image of the scene (depth map can be computed from the 2 simultaneous images – see at least pg. 22960 at ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide for acquiring first and second images having different depth of field and determine the depth map from the first and second images, as taught by Guo, because it provides for determining distances with relatively little computation (Guo at pg. 22959).
Claims 13, 14, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art in view of Guo, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2022/0057806 A1, “Guo II”).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant’s admitted prior art and Guo fail to teach but Guo II discloses systems and methods for obstacle detection and teaches:
wherein to determine the depth map of the scene, the depth estimation unit uses a machine learning model (depth map may be generated using a neural network – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide for determining the depth map using a machine learning model, as taught by Guo II, because using the machine learning model may increase efficiency and feature resolution of processed image (Guo II at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 14, Guo further teaches:
wherein the depth estimation unit comprises two feature extraction branches to calculate feature maps respectively of the first image and of the at least one second image (the metalens is designed to incorporate the phase profiles of 2 off-axis lenses with different in-focus distances on a shared aperture – see at least pg. 22962 at ‘Metalens Design and Characterization).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide two extraction branches, as further taught by Guo, because it provides for determining distances with relatively little computation (Guo at pg. 22959).
Guo II further teaches
an encoder-decoder which takes as input the feature maps calculated by each of the two feature extraction branches to determine the depth map (neural network model 320 includes five encoders/decoders to process the input image – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide for an encoder-decoder, as further taught by Guo II, because it may perform operations to reduce image distortion, blurriness, errors and remove artifacts and noise (Guo II at ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant’s admitted prior art and Guo fail to teach but Guo II discloses systems and methods for obstacle detection and teaches:
wherein the depth map is determined using a machine learning model taking as input the first image of the scene and the at least one second image of the scene and providing as output the depth map of the scene (depth map may be generated using a neural network – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0017]; neural network 330 uses input image 310 as input – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide for determining the depth map using a machine learning model, as taught by Guo II, because using the machine learning model may increase efficiency and feature resolution of processed image (Guo II at ¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Guo further teaches:
wherein the depth estimation unit comprises two feature extraction branches to calculate feature maps respectively of the first image and of the at least one second image (the metalens is designed to incorporate the phase profiles of 2 off-axis lenses with different in-focus distances on a shared aperture – see at least pg. 22962 at ‘Metalens Design and Characterization).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide two extraction branches, as further taught by Guo, because it provides for determining distances with relatively little computation (Guo at pg. 22959).
Guo II further teaches
an encoder-decoder which takes as input the feature maps calculated by each of the two feature extraction branches to determine the depth map (neural network model 320 includes five encoders/decoders to process the input image – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Applicant’s admitted prior art to provide for an encoder-decoder, as further taught by Guo II, because it may perform operations to reduce image distortion, blurriness, errors and remove artifacts and noise (Guo II at ¶ [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666