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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 13 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. Claim 13 recites “disposing the plurality of light-emitting elements and the at least one light receiving element,” which is incomplete and renders Claim 13 indefinite. For examination, given [0059] and Figs. 1 and 6-7, it is assumed applicant meant “disposing the… element on the substrate.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for acquiring output from a light-receiving element, inputting said output (or values derived therefrom) to a trained model, and outputting spatial physical quantities from said model. The output from a light-receiving element is either signals per se (if live input or stored in transitory media) or data per se (if stored on non-transitory media), both of which are considered judicial exceptions. While the model is “previously machine-trained with relationships between spatial physical quantities related to a reference plane of a sensor and an object and the values of the electrical physical quantities or the calculated values,” said training data is generic, does not add meaningful limitation to the model, and is data per se. The model itself, in the absence of non-transitory media to run the model and being previously trained, amounts to little more than a mathematical relationship, which is an abstract idea or law of nature. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the light-receiving element, the sensor, and the object are well-understood, routine, and conventional. This will still be examined against prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa (JP 2020201072 A – Applicant-provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa discloses A sensor for determining an object, comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting elements disposed in different positions on a substrate [0010, #1X on #3 in all figures]; and
at least one light receiving element disposed on the substrate [0010, #2Y on #3 in all figures], configured to:
receive, as a main light ray, one of reflected light rays originating from the light-emitting elements [0017, light from #11 impinging on #21 in Fig. 2], and
receive, as a crosstalk light ray distinguishable from the main light ray, a reflected light ray other than the main light ray, wherein the reflected light rays are light rays emitted from the light-emitting elements and reflected from the object [0017, light from #12 impinging on #21 in Fig. 2];
wherein the sensor determines spatial physical quantities related to a reference plane of the sensor and the object on the basis of the main light ray, which is distinguishably received, and the crosstalk light ray [0017].
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa discloses wherein the spatial physical quantities include at least a distance between the reference plane and the object [0016-0019, Fig. 2] and an angle of the object with respect to the reference plane [0024-0027, Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa discloses wherein the distance is 50 mm or less ["[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP §2114(II)].
Regarding Claim 4, Ishikawa discloses wherein the at least one light receiving element
are equal in number to to the light-emitting elements and are associated with the light-emitting elements one-to-one [0036, #11-12 between #21-22 in Fig. 6 constitute one light-emitting unit], and
are configured to receive, as the main light ray, the reflected light ray originating from the associated light-emitting elements and to receive, as the crosstalk light ray, the reflected light ray other than the main light ray so as to be able to distinguish the crosstalk light ray from the main light ray [0017, as above]
Regarding Claim 5, Ishikawa discloses wherein: each light-receiving element and the associated light-emitting elements are adjacent to each other to form a plurality of light-receiving/emitting blocks, and the light-receiving/emitting blocks are disposed on the substrate [0036, #1X adjacent to #2Y, both on #3 in Fig. 6].
Regarding Claim 6, Ishikawa discloses wherein the light-receiving/emitting blocks are disposed annularly and at equal intervals on the substrate [0036, Fig. 6].
Regarding Claim 7, Ishikawa discloses wherein 2 to 4 of the light-emitting elements are provided [0036, Fig. 6]
Regarding Claim 8, Ishikawa discloses wherein the light-emitting elements emit light rays at different timings [0016, signals SG1 and SG2].
Regarding Claim 9, Ishikawa discloses wherein:
the at least one light-receiving element is configured to generate electrical physical quantities corresponding to the reflected light rays [0013], and
the sensor determines the spatial physical quantities related to the reference plane of the sensor and the object on the basis of the electrical physical quantities based on the distinguishably received main light ray and the crosstalk light ray [0017-0019, 0024-0027].
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa discloses wherein the at least one light-receiving element is at least one light-receiving element having wide directivity [0013, e.g. photoelectric tube].
Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawa discloses A method for producing a sensor, comprising a step of disposing the plurality of light-emitting elements and the at least one light receiving element, wherein the sensor is the sensor described in claim 1 [0014].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (JP 2020201072 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishikawa teaches The sensor according to claim 9 and equations therefor. Ishikawa does not teach an AI input unit configured to input values of the electrical physical quantities or calculated values based on the electrical physical quantities as input parameters to a trained model, the trained model being a model previously machine-trained with relationships between the spatial physical quantities related to the reference plane of the sensor and the object and the values of the electrical physical quantities or the calculated values. However, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious that, due to nonlinearities from e.g. manufacturing tolerances and defects, the equations in Ishikawa are only approximate for a real-life sensor. Artificial intelligence/machine learning, which is widely valued for addressing nonlinearities, is a known technique prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use artificial intelligence/machine learning to overcome unresolved nonlinearities in Ishikawa’s equations. This applies to Claim 14, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 11, As a storage device and processor were necessary to use Ishikawa’s equations in a live setting, it would be obvious that, in Ishikawa as modified above, they would instead hold and run the AI model.
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to applicant-provided prior art and the prior art used above, the examiner identified the following relevant prior art:
Marszalec (IEEE, 1993) discloses an array-based range imaging sensor.
Gallego (arXiv, 2020) discloses machine learning for event cameras.
Julca-Aguilar (arXiv, 2021) discloses machine learning using a depth sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights