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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 10, and 17 being independent.
Claim Interpretation
Principal Point of an imaging device, such as claimed in claims 9, 16, and 20 is a term of art, as evidenced by the prior art made of record and not relied upon located in the conclusion section below.
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 1-20 is/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.
With respect to claim 1, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How the first set of rays correspond to the projected pattern and the second set of rays correspond to the pattern in the captured image? What does having correspond to in the claimed limitation? Is it having the pattern in the captured image? How do the rays in 3D space correspond to the projected pattern/pattern in the captured image? is the ray cast with in the captured image? Is the image projected into 3D space? Or is it a 3D image?
How are each of the sets of 3D point clouds compared to a set of target pixels and how does the comparison result in residues? What is meant by residues? The disclosure in paragraph 35 recites “produces the smallest residue (error)”. Is residue equivalent to an error? If so, then how does the comparison yield a set of errors? Furthermore, what constitutes the target set of pixels? Paragraph 24, for instance, provides an example of the target set of pixels being the pixels on the image plane of the projector. Are the target pixels related to a projection?
How is a value selected responsive to the set of residues? What is the relationship between the residues and the selection of a value? The sets of values generated do not appear to be related to the 3D point clouds or the target set of pixels – so how does the residue of the comparison relate to the parametric model?
How does the last limitation fit within the claim. The last limitation calls for displaying an image of an object in an environment of the device with the selected value assigned to the parametric model. However, it is unclear as to how the selected value is assigned to the parametric model and how that is used to display an image of an object.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 3, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by the set of residues including an epipolar constraint residue? Epipolar constraint residue is discussed with respect to paragraph 35. However, as claimed, it is not clear as to what is meant by and how the set of residues includes an epipolar constraint residue. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 4, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by the set of residues including a mean pixel displacement? Mean pixel displacement is discussed with respect to paragraph 35. However, as claimed, it is not clear as to what is meant by and how the set of residues includes a mean pixel displacement. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 5, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how each value in the set of values is selected to cause the residue for each successive comparison of the comparisons to be reduced. The comparing step is prior to the selecting a value step, so how does each value in the set of values cause the residue for each successive comparison to be reduced. It is unclear as to how this limitation fits with the limitations of claim 1. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 7, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by selecting different combinations of values for the parameters to determine each 3D point cloud. How does the different combination of values for the parameters determine each 3D point cloud? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 10, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How the set of triangulated points in 3D space are responsive to a pattern having multiple projected pixels and a captured image of a reflection of the pattern having multiple projected pixels. How do the patterns relate to the set of triangulated points?
How are the first and second 3D point clouds determined responsive to the set of triangulated points in 3D space and on a value for a parameter in a parametric model?
How are each of the 3D point clouds compared to a set of target pixels and how does the comparison result in residues? What is meant by residues? The disclosure in paragraph 35 recites “produces the smallest residue (error)”. Is residue equivalent to an error? If so, then how does the comparison yield a set of errors? Furthermore, what constitutes the target set of pixels? Paragraph 24, for instance, provides an example of the target set of pixels being the pixels on the image plane of the projector. Are the target pixels related to a projection?
How is the image generated of the environment object with the first value assigned to the parametric model? How does the first value assigned to the parametric model fit in with generating an image of the environment? Does the assignment go with the image generation or the environment object?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by sweeping through the possible values and how that relates to the selected value. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 17, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How the set of 3D point clouds is determined, where the 3D point cloud in the set responsive to different values for a parameter in an imaging device parametric model. What is the 3D point cloud referencing, as a 3D point cloud has not been previously set forth. Is applicant attempting to claim a specific 3D point cloud or each 3D point cloud in the set? What are the different values for a parameter in an imaging device parametric model referencing? Is applicant simply attempting to claim the 3D point cloud can change if the values of the parametric model change? It is unclear as to how the second portion of the limitation relates to the first and how the parametric model relates to the 3D point cloud.
What is meant by most closely matches? The metric by which a 3D point cloud most closely matches the a target set of pixels is unclear. How does the target set of pixels fit within the 3D point cloud? Is each of the 3D point clouds in the set of the 3D point clouds compared to a target set of pixels? What constitutes the target set of pixels? Paragraph 24, for instance, provides an example of the target set of pixels being the pixels on the image plane of the projector. Are the target pixels related to a projection?
How does the last limitation fit within the claim. The last limitation calls for producing an image of an environmental object with the value used to determine the first 3D point cloud assigned to the imaging device parametric model. However, it is unclear as to what “the value” is referencing and how that value was used to determine the first 3D point cloud and when the first 3D point cloud was assigned to the imaging device parametric model. Is the 3D point cloud used as input into the parametric model? Does the model affect the 3D point cloud? What is meant by assigned to in the instance of the claim?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 18, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by an epipolar constraint residue and mean pixel displacement? Mean pixel displacement with respect to what? Epipolar constraint residue and mean pixel displacement are discussed with respect to paragraph 35. However, as claimed, it is not clear as to what is meant by and how the determining comprises one of an epipolar constraint residue and a mean pixel displacement. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gong teaches that the principle point is defined in the Calibration Matrix, see page 1.
Lei et al. teaches Pix2Surf : Learning Parametric 3D Surface Models of Objects from Images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights