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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/11/2026. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17-19 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “using calibration of one or more motions for the one or more virtual projectors and geometric arrangement of their periodic sweep patterns based on one or more precalculated relative accuracy values for baseline separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera to characterize each of the one or more laser beams as a periodic function of time for movement of the one or more virtual projectors in a three-dimensional (3D) environment”. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the “using” step of the claimed invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
It is noted that the grounds of rejection are also entangled with the indefiniteness addressed below.
In [0145]+ of the Specification, Applicant details the look-up table of Fig. 16A related to projector/sensor calibration and “precalculated relative accuracy”. The limitation requires “using calibration of … motions … and geometric arrangement … based on …precalculated relative accuracy values for baseline separation between origins of … virtual projections for …pair combinations … to characterize each …. laser beams as periodic function of time”. In essence, the claim requires calibration to be output based on the input of the precalculated relative accuracy values and accuracy values to be output based on virtual projector origins for projector/camera pairs. Neither of these algorithms transforming the input data into the output data are described in sufficient detail to support the scope of the claimed invention.
In [0149]-[0152] of the Specification details that an instantaneous five DoF position of the beam in space and an instantaneous 2D spline position estimation in the sensor pixel space form the basis of Tx-Rx triangulation and “a pre-computed ranking (grading) of the potential contribution value of this pairing”. Assuming, for illustration, that the system appears as Applicant’s Fig. 16B, it can be seen that the LUT table in Fig. 16A provides values that generally correlate to the instantaneous configuration in that projector origins nearest to camera points have the lowest values in the table and vice versa. In [0022], Applicant notes that “5.3” in the LUT of Fig. 16A represents “5.3” baseline” – presumably a distance measure in inches. Assuming en arguendo that there is a distance between O1’ and C3 that is 5.3 inches and a distance between O1’ and C1 may be inferred to be 0.8inches, these values do not appear to represent a pre-computed ranking/grading based on instantaneous five DoF position and 2D spline position estimation in the sensor space. In [0021], Applicant states that Fig. 16A “holds pre calculated relative values for an expected accuracy for laser beams” – perhaps contradicting the language in [0149]-[0152] describing the entries not merely as baseline distances by rankings/scorings. In this first step of transforming baseline separation into ranking/grading and/or entries into a LUT referenced in calibration, the disclosure fails to provide an algorithmic road map of sufficient clarity for the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to clear identify the measurement of baseline distances, fails to identify the means for ranking/grading baseline distances, and fails to identify the time at which measurements are considered “baseline” and/or the relative orientation of virtual projectors to cameras.
In [0154]-[0157] of the Specification details a Multiview combination of virtual projectors and cameras as claimed and depicted in Fig. 16B. The algorithmic solution to calibration and populating “this look up table” (antecedence presumably from [0149]-[0152]) includes a physical world presentation o a planar target in 3D space and a method of disambiguation relating time and mirror phases to correlate respective fields of view. These steps are not further described other than to state “each individual sensor’s local computation subsystem … can correctly label … any sections”. In this apparently related step of transforming baseline separation into entries into a LUT referenced in calibration, the disclosure fails to provide an algorithmic road map of sufficient clarity for the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to clearly identify steps of ranking entries, establishing the expected triangulation quality factors, and labeling camera/sensor section with the right projector.
Aside from storing baseline separations in a table such as Fig. 16A, Applicant provides a calibration description in [0085] involving respective mirror facts, laser beam stroke direction, and camera views. It is unclear if the “calibration” in [0085] describes a configuration of the system and learned/known/predetermined relationships between beam paths and cameras, of if there is a use of this information in a conventional sense of calibrating a system to make adjustments thereby improving accuracy.
In summary, as the claimed invention now requires use of calibration based on “precalculated relative accuracy values”, compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitates an algorithmic solution of sufficient specificity for (1) the step of using and (2) the step of basing the calibration on accuracy values. Neither of these algorithmic solutions are described in sufficient detail to comply.
Independent Claim 17 recited substantially similar language and is rejected on the same grounds as above.
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 18-19 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the base claim.
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 1-2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 17-19 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “using calibration of one or more motions for the one or more virtual projectors and geometric arrangement of their periodic sweep patterns based on one or more precalculated relative accuracy values for baseline separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera to characterize each of the one or more laser beams as a periodic function of time for movement of the one or more virtual projectors in a three-dimensional (3D) environment”. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the “using” step of the claimed invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the algorithmic solution is not disclosed with sufficient specificity, the claimed algorithmic steps are indefinite.
A discussion of the lack of sufficient specificity is detailed above and will not be repeated herein.
Further, the grammatical construction and indefinite phrasing of the limitation do not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in light of the Specification. The phrase “precalculated relative accuracy values for baseline separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera”. As a first matter, the phrase “origins of the one or more virtual projections” does not clearly limit the claimed invention but rather appears to include mutually exclusive interpretations analogous to Applicant’s disclosure and extraneous from it. The following species are included in the phrase: (1) origins of one virtual projection, or (2) origins of more virtual projections. For (1), it is unclear what may be meant by multiple origins of one projection. It is also unclear if a “relative accuracy value” is possibly obtained for a system having a single virtual projection. The phrase “one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera”. As the claim requires “a plural of facets (KMFs)… to create a virtual projector having a distinct virtual origin point … for each KMF” and “a plurality of cameras”, the claim includes both broad and narrows limitations in contradiction. The claim necessarily has plural pair combinations of virtual projectors and cameras and in minimum there are four pair combinations on account of there being two or more KMFs and two or more cameras. If the claim is limited to pair combinations “of each virtual projector and each camera”, then there cannot be only one pair combination.
As to “precalculated relative accuracy values” alone, (1) there are no metes and bounds of a pre-calculation, (2) there is no reference by which to determine “relative”, and (3) there are no metes and bounds to the measure of accuracy. The pre-calculation is discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section as to how the step is performed. As to (2), Applicant repeatedly discloses ranking/grading cameras against other cameras though it is unclear if the claimed “relative” references these comparisons. As to (3), Applicant details a measure of distances between cameras and respective projectors, and how 5D DoF values and timestamps are critical to interpreting the geometrical relationships between system elements, though there is no specific meaning of “accuracy” related to these measurements. It is unclear if accuracy is a scale, a rank, a binary judgment, or any other mathematical manipulation of the data. As a best guess in view of the disclosure, “accuracy” is not intrinsic to a projector-camera relationship in time but rather a quality of that projector-camera relationship at a time that a particular target surface is presented to the system. In other words, taking Fig. 4 as illustration, were a surface substantially oriented parallel to the O3’ facet is presented to the system then the combination of C1 and O7’ would be considered less accurate than the combination of C3 and O3’. Accuracy, in this way, is a measure of whether the target surface could be imaged properly and the C3 and O3’ pai is binarily judged to be more accurate than the C1 and O7’ pair. Perhaps the accuracy values are then “1” and “0” in a look-up table. While this may have been Applicant’s intention, there is no disclosure by which to interpret “precalculated relative accuracy values” with definiteness.
Independent Claim 17 recited substantially similar language and is rejected on the same grounds as above.
Dependent claims 2, 6-7, 10, 12-13, 18-19 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency of the base claim.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2008/162243 discloses a measure of “accuracy” as it related to scanning mirrors, manufacturing differences, and the corresponding “jitter”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights