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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a measuring unit” in claims 3 and 4: the measuring unit is one of the following: field programmable gate array (FPGA), digital signal processor (DSP), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). (¶30, Each of the measuring unit 45 and the communication interface 47 may be implemented by a semiconductor integrated circuit constructed by a field programmable gate array (FPGA). Alternatively, each of these parts may be implemented by another semiconductor integrated circuit, such as a digital signal processor (DSP), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)).
“a movable unit” in claim 5: no sufficient structure is provided for the movable unit in the specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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.
Claim 5 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 limitation “a movable unit” invokes 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. The only mention of the movable unit in the specification is in ¶66, which states, In accordance with the above embodiments, a movable unit for changing directions of the image-capture lenses 11 and 21 may be additionally provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura et al. (JP 2011064482 A) in view of Saliu et al. (USPGPub 20230045152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Futamura teaches a distance measuring device comprising: a light projector (2) (see figure 13, light source 2); a first image-capture unit (6a) and a second image-capture unit (6b) arranged to have fields of view thereof overlapping each other (see figure 13, lines cameras 6a and 6b with overlapping fields of view; and ¶43, Conventionally, when using a single line camera, there were cases where parts that could not be observed by a single line camera, i.e., blind spots, occurred due to the relationship between the camera position and the shape of the object being measured. This high-speed three-dimensional measurement system can perform observations using two line cameras, allowing the blind spots of one line camera to be covered by the other, thus reducing the overall blind spots); and a lens (7) configured to form an image of an object on a sensing surface of the first image-capture unit (6/6a) (see figure 11, lens 7; and ¶29, The line camera 6 captures reflected light from the object to be measured 1 via the lens 7), wherein the light projector (2) is configured to project patterned light on an area in which the object exists and the fields of view of the first image-capture unit (6a) and the second image-capture unit (6b) overlap each other, the patterned light containing the light beams distributed in a predetermined pattern (see figure 13; and ¶28, The pattern light source 2 comprises a light source 3, a lens 4, and a reticle 5 whose light transmission amount changes periodically. This pattern light source 2 emits light from the light source 3 through the lens 4 and reticle 5. This allows the object to be measured 1 to be irradiated with a striped pattern of light whose light intensity changes periodically along one direction), and the sensing surface of the first image-capture unit (6/6a) and a principal plane of the lens (7) are not parallel to each other (see figure 11; and ¶41, the optical axis of the lens 7 is tilted with respect to the optical axis of the line camera 6 itself. More specifically, as shown in Figure 11, the plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the line sensor 8, the plane including the surface of the lens 7, and the surface of the object to be measured 1 are arranged to intersect in a single line). However, Futamura fails to explicitly teach wherein the light projector is configured to project light containing light beams having wavelength bands different from one another.
However, Saliu teaches wherein the light projector (221) is configured to project light containing light beams having wavelength bands different from one another (¶68, the illumination system can provide the sample with different illumination configurations, which can allow the micro cameras to capture images of the sample with light incident upon the sample at different angles, spatial patterns, and wavelengths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Futamura to incorporate the teachings of Saliu to have the light source illuminate the object with different wavelengths because by providing the sample with different illumination light angles, spatial patterns, and wavelengths, both intensity and phase information of the imaged optical field can be recorded, which can allow the reconstruction of an image, for example, with more information or higher resolution, such as a measure of sample depth, spectral (e.g., color) properties, or the optical phase at the sample plane (Saliu, ¶69).
Regarding claim 2, Futamura as modified by Saliu teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the sensing surface of the first image-capture unit (Futamura 6a | Saliu 210), the principal plane of the lens (Futamura 7), and a surface of the object are arranged so as to satisfy a Scheimpflug condition (Futamura, ¶41, the optical axis of the lens 7 is tilted with respect to the optical axis of the line camera 6 itself. More specifically, as shown in Figure 11, the plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the line sensor 8, the plane including the surface of the lens 7, and the surface of the object to be measured 1 are arranged to intersect in a single line. This is similar to the arrangement of the reticle 5 of the pattern light source 2, and is called the "Scheinproof principle." When the above conditions are met, the line sensor 8 can focus on both the front and back of the object being measured when acquiring the optical signal; and NOTE: Scheimpflug is misspelled in the above quotation, however, it is referring to the same concept).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura et al. (JP 2011064482 A) in view of Saliu et al. (USPGPub 20230045152 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawachi (USPGPub 20080106620 A1).
Regarding claim 3¸ Futamura as modified by Saliu teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, further comprising a measuring unit (Futamura 9) configured to: measure a distance to a surface of the object on which the patterned light is projected based on a first image captured by the first image-capture unit (Futamura 6a | Saliu 210) and a second image captured by the second image-capture unit (Futamura 6b | Saliu 210) (Futamura, ¶27, The measurement unit 9 calculates the height (shape) of the object to be measured 1 based on the relationship between the acquired set of optical signals and the striped pattern light; and ¶43, This high-speed three-dimensional measurement system can perform observations using two line cameras, allowing the blind spots of one line camera to be covered by the other, thus reducing the overall blind spots). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach interpolating the second image based on the first image.
However, Sawachi teaches interpolating the second image based on the first image (¶17, the first range image generated by the first range image generating device is interpolated with the second range image generated by the second range image generating device. Namely, the part in which distance data are insufficient in the first range image is supplemented by the second range image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Futamura and Saliu to incorporate the teachings of Sawachi to interpolate one image based off of another image because [t]herefore, highly accurate range images can be generated (Sawachi, ¶17).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura et al. (JP 2011064482 A) in view of Saliu et al. (USPGPub 20230045152 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (USPGPub 20210248766 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Futamura as modified by Saliu teaches the lens (Futamura 7) (Futamura, see figure 11). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a movable unit configured to change a direction of the lens.
However, Koo teaches a movable unit configured to change a direction of the lens (¶144, the camera 175 may include a lens unit 171 mounted in a rotatable structure to enable change of the capture direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Futamura and Saliu to incorporate the teachings of Koo to further include a movable lens in order to capture images of different areas of an object under test, thereby reducing the number of cameras needed to image an entirety of the object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the distance measuring device according to claim 1 as claimed, further comprising a measuring unit configured to measure a distance to a surface of the object on which the patterned light is projected based on a first image captured by the first image-capture unit and a second image captured by the second image-capture unit, wherein the light projector is configured to project first patterned light and second patterned light, more specifically in combination with the first patterned light being generated based on an inclination of the surface of the object with respect to the sensing surface of the first image-capture unit, the second patterned light being generated based on an inclination of the surface of the object with respect to a sensing surface of the second image-capture unit, the first image-capture unit is configured to capture the first image when the first patterned light is projected, and the second image-capture unit is configured to capture the second image when the second patterned light is projected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grossinger et al. (USPGPub 20210366142 A1): Grossinger teaches the projection of two different patterns onto two different portions of an area (¶45, the illuminator 210 may project a first light pattern into a first portion of the local area and a second light pattern into a second portion of the local area), however, Grossinger fails to explicitly teach projecting different patterns based on an inclination of a surface in relation to a camera.
Yamada (JP 2008309551 A): Yamada teaches the projection of a first pattern onto an object and then, based on the shape of the object causing errors in the reflected light, altering the projection pattern (¶7, a pattern projection unit that projects a predetermined projection pattern onto an object to be measured; and an imaging unit that images the object onto which the projection pattern has been projected by the pattern projection unit, wherein the three-dimensional shape of the object is measured based on an image of the object captured by the imaging unit, the method comprising: a first step of setting the object to dim or extinguish a part of the projection pattern that is captured by multiple reflections on the surface of the object to be measured; and a second step of projecting the projection pattern that has been dimmed or extinguished in the first step onto the object using the pattern projection unit).
Mayer et al. (DE 4402414 C2): Mayer teaches projecting a pattern with a plurality of different sub-patterns contained therein.
Balatzis et al. (USPGPub 20230186437 A1): Balatzis teaches a distance measuring device having two cameras (224 and 226) with overlapping fields of view and a pattern projector (222) disposed therebetween (see figure 4A).
Ouellet et al. (USPGPub 20240288267 A1): Ouellet teaches a 3D scanner comprising two cameras (C1 and C2) having overlapping fields of view and a pattern projector (P) (see figure 1B).
Jensen et al. (USPGPub 20210152810 A1): Jensen teaches a range measuring device having at least two cameras (41a and 41b), but up to four cameras, and a projector 43) (see figure 4; and see figures 1 and 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights