CTNF 18/998,479 CTNF 89526 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 2. 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. 07-34-01 AIA 3. Claim 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1, recites the limitation "the image capturing device" in line 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 4. 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 5. Claim s 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2015/0208059 A1 by Hassebrook et al. (hereinafter Hassebrook ) . Regarding Claim 1, Hassebrook teaches an Imaging using Reflected Illuminated Structures ("IRIS") device, the IRIS device (Fig.1, 2a, Par. [0035-0036, 0042-0044]) comprising (Fig. 1-21) : a projector (Fig. 2a @ 112, Par. [0044]) ; a camera (Fig. 2a @ 110, Par. [0043]) ; a processor (Fig. 2a @ 116, Par. [0044]) operatively connected to the projector (Fig. 2a @ 112, Par. [0044]) and the camera (Fig. 2a @ 110, Par. [0043]) ; and a memory storing instructions (inherently teaches) that, when executed by the processor (Fig. 2a @ 116, Par. [0044]) , cause the image capture device to: project, using the projector (Fig. 2a @ 112, Par. [0044]) , a plurality of illuminated structures (Par. [0044]) onto an object (Fig. 2a @ 104, Par. [0044]) having an optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface (Par. [0042]) ; and capture, using the camera (Fig. 2a @ 110, Par. [0043]) , image data comprising a reflection (Fig. 2a, illustrates reflection ) of the plurality of illuminated structures from the optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface of the object (Fig. 2a @ 104, Par. [0042-0044]) . Regarding Claim 2, Hassebrook teaches the plurality of illuminated structures comprises a pattern that increases contrast (Par. [0067]) of at least one feature on the optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface (Fig. 2a @ 104, Par. [0044]) . Regarding Claim 11, Hassebrook teaches a method for imaging an object with an optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface (See Claim 1 rejection above. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim) , the method comprising: projecting a plurality of illuminated structures onto the object (See Claim 1 rejection above) ; and capturing image data comprising a reflection of the plurality of illuminated structures from the optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface of the object (See Claim 1 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 12, Hassebrook teaches the plurality of illuminated structures comprises a pattern that increases contrast of at least one feature on the optically transparent, translucent, or opaque surface (See Claim 2 rejection above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim s 3-8, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassebrook as applied to Claim 2 above in view of JP2013003242A by Nakamura et al. (hereinafter Nakamura ) . Regarding Claim 3, Hassebrook teaches the pattern comprises black-and-white structure image (Par. [0067]: pattern 310 is in black and white) but does not explicitly teach an alternating black-and-white structure image of squares. However, Nakamura teaches an alternating black-and-white structure image of squares (Fig. 4a @ 4, 5, Par. [0028]) . 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 Hassebrook by Nakamura such that an alternating black-and-white structure image of squares is accomplished in order to achieve a desired light distribution using a small amount of data and that does not cause interference fringes (moiré) in a light distribution mask (Nakamura, Abstract, Par. [0015]) . Regarding Claim 4, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the pattern comprises an array of squares (Nakamura, Fig. 3, 4) but does not explicitly teach at least 30 by 30 squares . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a particular size in order to provide a desired light distribution using a mask composed of square fine dot figures and dot gap region arranged in a staggered manner to form a checkerboard pattern (Nakamura, Par. [0015-0018, 0027-0028]) , since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device . In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc. , 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Regarding Claim 5, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches each square has a length between .5 to 2 times a length associated with the at least one feature (Nakamura, Par. [0043]) . Regarding Claim 6, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the memory stores additional instructions that, when executed by the processor (See Claim 1 rejection above) , further cause the image capture device to adjust the plurality of illuminated structures using at least one illuminated structure setting (Nakamura, Par. [0043]) . Regarding Claim 7, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the at least one illuminated structure setting includes structure type, structure size, intensity, and periodicity (Nakamura, Par. [0043]) . Regarding Claim 8, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the structure type includes squares, discs, polygons, and spheres (Nakamura, Fig. 4a, Par. [0043]) . Regarding Claim 13, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the pattern comprises an alternating black-and- white structure image of squares (See Claim 3 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 14, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the pattern comprises an array of at least 30 by 30 squares (See Claim 4 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 15, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches each square has a length between .5 to 2 times a length associated with the at least one feature (See Claim 5 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 16, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches adjusting the plurality of illuminated structures using at least one illuminated structure setting (See Claim 6 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 17, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the at least one illuminated structure setting includes structure type, structure size, intensity, and periodicity (See Claim 7 rejection above) . Regarding Claim 18, Hassebrook as modified by Nakamura teaches the structure type includes squares, discs, polygons, and spheres (See Claim 8 rejection above) . 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassebrook as applied to Claim 1 above in view of US Patent No. 6618076 B1 by Sukthankar et al. (hereinafter Sukthankar ) . Regarding Claim 10, Hassebrook teaches the projector (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach is an LCD monitor. However, Sukthankar teaches the projector is an LCD monitor (Claim 19: the projector is an LCD projector ) . 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 Hassebrook by Sukthankar such that the projector is an LCD monitor is accomplished in order to produce patterns which calibrate said projector at unknown orientations to avoid distortion of a projected image or pattern (Sukthankar, Col. 2, line 22 - Col. 3, line 16) . Regarding Claim 20, Hassebrook as modified by Sukthankar teaches rein the plurality of illuminated structures is projected using an LCD monitor (See Claim 10 rejection above) and the image data is captured using a digital camera (Hassebrook, Par. [0043]: digital camera) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 9 . Claim s 9 and 19 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. Additional Prior Art 07-96 AIA 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of structured light projector . US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0225463 A1 by Hsieh (Fig. 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416 . 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. /JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/998,479 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights