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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOTOYAMA (US 2020/0209401).
As to claim 14, MOTOYAMA discloses a depth sensor comprising:
a light emitter configured to emit light (para. 0095);
an image sensor configured to sense light reflected from a subject and generate an input image having projected dots according to the reflected light (para. 0097); and
an image processor configured to detect the projected dots from the input image based on correction threshold information predetermined depending on positions of the projected dots (para. 0104-0106, 0118, e.g., 3D information of projected points Lp corresponds to the correction threshold information).
As to claim 15, MOTOYAMA discloses the depth sensor of claim 14, wherein the image sensor is further configured to generate another input image not having the projected dots (para. 0099), and wherein the image processor is configured to detect the projected dots while noise reflected in the input image is removed using the another input image (para. 0046-0050, 0150).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-13, 16-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOTOYAMA (US 2020/0209401) in view of TSAI (US 2022/0108454).
As to claim 1, MOTOYAMA discloses an image processor comprising:
a first processor configured to generate an image based on an input image having projected dots and correction threshold information predetermined depending on positions of the projected dots (para. 0104-0106, 0118, e.g., 3D information of projected points Lp corresponds to the correction threshold information); and
a second processor configured to detect the projected dots based on the input image and the image (para. 0120-0124).
Although MOTOYAMA discloses generating an image as shown in Figs. 6, 7, MOTOYAMA is silent regarding generating an binary image.
TSAI teaches generating an binary image (para. 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate TSAI’s teachings into MOTOYAMA since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and improve processing speed.
As to claim 2, the combination of MOTOYAMA and TSAI discloses the image processor of claim 1, wherein the first processor includes: a storage configured to store the correction threshold information (MOTOYAMA, para. 0104-0118); and an image converter configured to convert the input image into the binary image based on the correction threshold information (MOTOYAMA, para. 0104-0118; TSAI, para. 0086).
As to claim 4, the combination of MOTOYAMA and TSAI discloses the image processor of claim 1, wherein the second processor includes: a labeling processor configured to generate a label map, in which the projected dots are labeled, based on the binary image (MOTOYAMA, para. 0120-0124; TSAI, para. 0086); and a detector configured to detect the projected dots based on the label map and the input image (para. 0120-0124).
As to claim 5, the combination of MOTOYAMA and TSAI discloses the image processor of claim 4, wherein the detector is configured to detect each of the projected dots by selecting a center point of at least one label included in the label map (MOTOYAMA, para. 0012, 0136).
As to claim 6, the combination of MOTOYAMA and TSAI discloses the image processor of claim 5, wherein the center point corresponds to a target pixel among pixels included in the at least one label, the target pixel being indicated by an average coordinate value of horizontal axis coordinate values of the pixels and an average coordinate value of vertical axis coordinate values of the pixels (MOTOYAMA, para. 0139-0148).
As to claim 7, MOTOYAMA discloses an image processor comprising:
a noise remover configured to generate a third input image from which noise is removed, based on a first input image having projected dots and a second input image not having the projected dots (para. 0046-0050, 0150);
a first processor configured to generate an image based on the third input image and correction threshold information which is predetermined depending on positions of the projected dots (para. 0104-0106, 0118, e.g., 3D information of projected points Lp corresponds to the correction threshold information); and
a second processor configured to detect the projected dots based on the third input image and the image (para. 0120-0124).
Although MOTOYAMA discloses generating an image as shown in Figs. 6, 7, MOTOYAMA is silent regarding generating an binary image.
TSAI teaches generating an binary image (para. 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate TSAI’s teachings into MOTOYAMA since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and improve processing speed.
As to claims 9, 11-13, 16-17, 19-21, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses the claim limitations discussed above, but fails to disclose the combined features required by each of dependent claims 3, 8, 10, 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BLOOM et al. disclose a method for calibrating a depth sensor of a device. The method includes simultaneously capturing within a current scene: a red-green-blue (RGB) image by a RGB sensor of a device; and an infrared (IR) image by an IR sensor of the device. The method further includes concurrently capturing, via an IR sensor of the device, an uncalibrated depth image within the current scene. The method further includes calculating calibration data from the RGB image and the IR image and applying the calibration data to the uncalibrated depth image to generate a corrected depth image. The method further includes combining the RGB image and the corrected depth image to generate a RGB depth image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights