DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Claims 5,7-8,13,15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1,9,17 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,9-10,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190383903 A1 (Chao) in view of US 20210041567 A1 (Milgrome).
Claim 9,1 and 17 (mutatis mutandis). Chao teaches a system for detecting an object comprising:
a processor (para 5,12 note processor);
and a memory in communication with the processor, the memory (para 12,18) including:
a feature generation module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive sensor data, the sensor data based on information from a first set of echo points and a second set of echo points (para 5 note first channel and second channel),
and generate a first set of feature maps based on the first set of echo points (para 5 first channel of the signal reflected and first feature map ) and a second set of feature maps based on the second set of echo points (para 5 note a second channel of the signal reflected and second feature map ); and a bounding box generation module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: predict a bounding box for the object based on the first set of feature maps and the second set of feature maps (para 5 note receiving output from the first and second feature map generators and forming frames. Para 21).
Chao teaches first set of echo points and second set of echo points but fails to explicitly teach at least one echo point from the first set of echo points and one echo point from the second set of echo points originating from a single beam, the first set of echo points sharing a common characteristic and the second set of echo points having the opposite common characteristic. However, Milgrome teaches that at least one echo point from the first set of echo points and one echo point from the second set of echo points originating from a single beam (para 40 note single laser and multiple returns), the first set of echo points sharing a common characteristic and the second set of echo points having an opposite common characteristic (para 40 note Return signal 203 may have a shorter TOF and a stronger received signal strength compared with return signal 205.).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chao and Milgrome and modify the system such that at least one echo point from the first set of echo points and one echo point from the second set of echo points originating from a single beam, the first set of echo points sharing a common characteristic and the second set of echo points having an opposite common characteristic. The motivation to do so would be to have multiple return detection systems and save power by not transmitting multiple signals.
Claim 10,2 and 18 (mutatis mutandis). Chao as modified in view of Milgrome teaches the system of claim 9. Chao teaches wherein the memory further includes: an object classification module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: classify the object based on the first set of feature maps and the second set of feature maps (para 21-24 note classifying gestures.).
Claim(s) 3-4,11-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190383903 A1 (Chao) in view of US 20210041567 A1 (Milgrome) further in view of US 20190361456 A1 (Zeng).
Claim 11,3 and 19 (mutatis mutandis). Chao as modified in view of Milgrome teaches the system of claim 9. Chao fails to explicitly teach but Zeng teaches wherein the sensor data is based on at least one of a plurality of bounding box proposals and 3-dimensional (3D) features (para 118).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chao, Milgrome and Zeng and modified the system such that the sensor data is based on at least one of a plurality of bounding box proposals and 3-dimensional (3D) features. The motivation to do so would be to find location of the object (Zeng para 119).
Claim 12,4 and 20 (mutatis mutandis). Chao as modified in view of Milgrome and Zeng teaches the system of claim 11. Chao fails to explicitly teach but Zeng teaches wherein the memory further includes:
the feature generation module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: generate ROI features based on the plurality of bounding box proposals the first set of feature maps, and the second set of feature maps; and the bounding box generation module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: predict the bounding box based on the ROI features (para 162-164 note ROI, bounding box and features).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chao, Milgrome and Zeng and modify the system such that it can generate region of interest (ROI) features based on the plurality of bounding box proposals, the first set of feature maps, and the second set of feature maps and predicting the bounding box based on the ROI features. The motivation to do so would be to find location of the object (Zeng para 119).
Claim(s) 6,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190383903 A1 (Chao) in view of US 20210041567 A1 (Milgrome) further in view of US 20200401823 A1 (Miller).
Claim 14 and 6 (mutatis mutandis). Chao as modified in view of Milgrome teaches the system of claim 9. Chao fails but Miller teaches wherein the memory further includes: an echo point assignment module including instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: determine whether to assign an echo point to the first set of echo points or the second set of echo points based on an intensity value of the echo point (see figure 13 ref 1304 note cluster of points with high intensity ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chao and Miller and modify the system such that it can assign an echo point based on intensity of the echo point. The motivation to do so would be to classify the object (Miller see abstract)
Response to Arguments
During the interview it was discussed that the amendment appears to overcome the current rejection, however further search and consideration is required. After further consideration, it is seen that the amendment does not overcome the rejection. Specification (para 18 of instant application) teaches that the characteristics of the related echo points can include an intensity value of the echo point, a range value of the echo point. Milgrome teaches this in para 40. Milgrome teaches “Return signal 203 may have a shorter TOF and a stronger received signal strength compared with return signal 205”. Return signal 203 has shorter TOF and return signal 205 has longer TOF. Therefore, it has opposite common characteristics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
