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 8/28/2026. Claims 1 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.
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 “calibrating 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 accuracy values in a look up table (LUT) that ranks an accuracy for observed extrinsic projection patterns for each of the one or more laser beams in a three-dimensional environment that are subsequently employed to predict and rank an accuracy of triangulation for separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera and 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 the three-dimensional (3D) environment”. The specification neither provides sufficient detail of the computer and corresponding algorithm to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the “calibrating” step of the claimed invention. 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)
In the 8/28/2026 Remarks, Applicant points to specific portions of the original disclosure (Remarks, Page 9) which have been considered in combination with the disclosure as a whole. The plain meaning of “calibrate” includes “[t]o determine the calibre of” (OED), “[t]o determine the correct position, value, capacity, etc., of; to set an instrument so that readings taken from it are absolute rather than relative” (OED), “to adjust precisely for a particular function” (Merriam Webster), and “to measure precisely” (Merriam Webster). Evidence of possession of the invention required algorithmic specificity for calibrating motions for projectors based on accuracy values in a look up table. Using the plain meaning gleaned from dictionary definitions, the system determined correct positions and values or adjusts for a particular function or measures precisely motions for projectors based on accuracy values in a look up table. To summarize the portions of the disclosure Applicants points to for support, the system appears to select projectors and/or data from projectors, predict geometries, estimate target geometries, and combinations thereof. It is unclear whether the scope of the claimed “calibrating” includes active steps (e.g. adjusting mirrors or controlling laser sources) or merely computational steps (e.g. data filtering, etc.) as there is no disclosed algorithm using the accuracy ranks from a LUT. The language “that are subsequently employed to predict and rank an accuracy of triangulation” may be intended to describe “calibrating” and the use of the LUT values, though “predicting and ranking” falls short of describing the scope of “calibrating” as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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” – contrasting with 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 of 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 calibration based on “precalculated accuracy values”, compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitates an algorithmic solution of sufficient specificity for (1) calibrating and (2) 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 “calibrating 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 accuracy values in a look up table (LUT) that ranks an accuracy for observed extrinsic projection patterns for each of the one or more laser beams in a three-dimensional environment that are subsequently employed to predict and rank an accuracy of triangulation for separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations of each virtual projector and each camera and 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 the 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 a clear and definite “calibrating” step of the claimed invention. 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.
Aside from the algorithmic solution addressed above, the grammatical construction provides mutually exclusive interpretations of the phrasing and does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Firstly, “a look up table (LUT) that ranks an accuracy for observed extrinsic projection patterns for each of the one or more laser beams in a three-dimensional environment that are subsequently employed to predict and rank an accuracy of triangulation” does not clearly establish that which are “subsequently employed”. Assuming there is subject-predicate agreement, then it appears that the language is to be understood as requiring projection patterns to be subsequently employed though it is unclear how projection patterns are employed “to predict and rank”. Perhaps the intent was to limit “ranks” stored in the look up table as being employed to predict and rank triangulation accuracy such that the LUT values are an input into a triangulation accuracy calculation. Or perhaps the intent was to limit the LUT itself as employed to predict ad rank triangulation accuracy more generally. An artisan would understand these interpretations to be distinct and unclearly define the metes and bounds of “calibrating”. Similarly, “for separation between origins of the one or more virtual projections for one or more pair combinations” is an adjective clause with unclear basis to which it modifies. Are the precalculated accuracy values for separation between origins and not “of” separation between origins? Or is the claim requiring that separation between origins is “for” the prediction and ranking of triangulation accuracy?
Based on the disclosure in [0145]-[0162], it appears that the intent of the claimed obtaining and calibrating steps are more clearly detailed in terms of receiving a plurality of sweep patterns at a plurality of sensors from a plurality of projectors, identifying a time range corresponding to a particular projector providing a sweep pattern to a particular sensor, and selecting a subset of all data sets corresponding to all sweep patterns at the sensors based on the temporal windowing to only further compute data from sensor-projector combinations having the highest precalculated accuracy values. The claim does not capture this. Further examination on the merits is pre-empted and Examiner recommends specifying the steps more precisely within the claim to clarify the metes and bounds of the invention.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks do not specifically point out errors in the above rejections as the rejections are based on amended language, though the cited portions of the originally-filed Specifications could be construed as a preemptive argument against the rejection. These portions of the disclosure are addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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