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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 112(b) rejections on claims 15 and 25, applicant amended and indicated support in paragraph 0109 of filed specification.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Filed claim amendment remains indefinite or unclear, possibly due to word processing error in showing Greek symbols. Despite applicant’s indication of support in filed specification, it does not explain an incomplete density unit “sr-1” or “/4πsr-1” for beam density, wherein “4πsr” is merely a sphere volume representation, and whereas “5*103” and “106” have no unit representation.
Thus, rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, punctuation mark is missing after “providing a radiation source.”
In clams 15 and 25, Greek letter symbols are missing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15, 25 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 15 and 25 recites the broad recitation a beam density range, and the claim also recites multiple particular beam density values which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claims 15 and 25, applicant claims “beam density” but with indefinite density unit symbol. Density is defined to have units of mass/substance divided by volume. Yet, the claimed “sr-1” or “/4πsr-1” resemble an incomplete density unit symbol, wherein “4πsr-1” (or 4π/sr) doesn’t seem to be a valid expression.
For examination purpose, the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-14, 16-24, 26-27, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0004787) in view of Schuyler et al. (US2004/0153671) and Norbert et al. (WO2008084058)
To claim 1, Chen teach a method for distinguishing, detecting and counting persons and/or objects in facilities and/or vehicles for conveying persons and/or goods (Figs. 6, 8, 10, 15) with the following method steps:
providing a counting region (22 of Figs. 6, 8, 10, 15),
providing a detection region arranged in a region at an entrance to the facilities and/or vehicles for conveying persons and/or objects (abstract, Figs. 6, 8, 10, 15),
providing a radiation source, emitting light radiation by the radiation source, generating a light pattern comprising light points in the detection region, detecting radiation backscattered by persons and/or objects situated in the detection region, obtaining a 3D point cloud from the backscattered radiation (paragraphs 0010, 0066, 0068-0069, 0071, depth-sensing sensor comprises a structured light measurement, phase shift measurement, time of flight measurement, stereo triangulation device, sheet of light triangulation device, light field cameras, coded aperture cameras, computational imaging techniques, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), imaging radar, imaging sonar, scanning LIDAR, flash LIDAR, Passive Infrared (PIR) sensor, and small Focal Plane Array (FPA), or a combination, wherein depth map produced is also known as point cloud in 3D depth sensor, and wherein it is well-known in the art that LIDAR utilizes backscattering by sending out laser pulses pattern and measuring the time it takes for reflected light/backscatter to return, allowing for accurate distance calculations and 3D mapping of a scene)
searching for parts of characteristics shapes in the 3D point cloud, detecting a characteristic shape, abstracting position of a specific person or of a specific object by a characteristic point (paragraphs 0082, 0106, 0124, tracking position of tracked object, checking with a human shape model to determine whether the depth data is a human),
forming a trajectory with a series of characteristic points over time (paragraphs 0120, pertaining to movement of passenger through world 3D coordinate space), and
generating a counting event when the trajectory intersects the counting region (paragraphs 0011, 0078-0079, detection, tracking and counting, facilitated by the depth-sensing device, wherein trajectory intersecting a counting region for triggering counting would have been obvious).
But, Chen do not expressly disclose the detection region arranged in a region between 30cm in front of and 30cm behind an entrance.
In further said obviousness, Schuyler teach an object detector to count persons crossing a boundary (Figs. 1, 7, 9; paragraph 0031, object detector tracks movements of person; paragraphs 0069, 0072, 0075, using shape data to detect person; paragraph 0040, generating 3D point cloud from depth-sensing technology such as stereopsis, LiDAR, or structured light projection; paragraphs 0010, 0035, 0038, 0071-0072, tracking and counting people crossing a boundary), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Chen for furthering implementation of detecting, tracking and counting.
Norbert teach using depth-sensing technology such as radar sensor to monitor a detection region comprising an area in front of and an area behind of an automatic door (Figs. 2-3; page 3 line s103-107, page 4 lines 139-141, monitoring a detection region of the entire space in front of, and behind a door, wherein detection range is 20-30cm from the door, which means a region between 30cm in front of and 30cm behind an entrance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Norbert into the modified method Chen and Schuyler, in order to specify a monitoring region by design preference.
To claim 16, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach a person and/or object counting device for detecting, categorizing and counting persons and/or objects in facilities and/or vehicles for conveying passenger and/or goods (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claims 2 and 17, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein the counting region is arranged in a region 20 cm in front of and/or 20 cm behind entrance to the facilities and/or to the vehicle for conveying persons and/or objects and preferably between 10 cm in front of and/or 10 cm behind the entrance to the facilities and/or to the vehicle for conveying persons and/or objects (obvious in view of teaching in claim 1 above, wherein 10cm and 20cm are both within 30cm range).
To claims 3 and 18, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the counting region comprises a counting volume, wherein a counting event occurs when a person and/or an object enters the counting volume and/or exits the counting volume (Schuyler, paragraphs 0031, 0034-0035).
To claims 4 and 19, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the counting region comprises a counting area, wherein a counting event occurs when a person and/or an object enters the counting area and/or exits the counting area (Schuyler, Fig. 7).
To claims 5 and 20, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the counting region comprises two counting areas, wherein a counting event occurs when a person and/or an object enters one of the counting areas and/or exits one of the counting areas (obvious in Schuyler, Fig. 7; paragraphs 0034-0035, counting number of persons entering and leaving between areas 102 and 110).
To claims 6 and 21, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 5 and 20.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that a first counting area faces a vehicle interior and a second counting area faces the vehicle exterior, wherein a counting event occurs when a person and/or an object enters the first counting area and/or exits the second counting area (Norbert, page 1 lines 21-23, utility application with vehicle doors).
To claims 7 and 22, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the location of the counting region and/or of the counting area is chosen depending on the type of detected object (Schuyler, paragraphs 0048-0049).
To claims 8 and 26, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that a light pattern is detected in the detection region (inherent to LiDAR operation).
To claims 9 and 27, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 8 and 26.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that a shift of the light pattern is detected in the detection region (tracking shape data as explained in response to claim 1 above; Chen, paragraph 0090, depth map or point cloud tracks whether an object/passenger shifting position).
To claims 11 and 29, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 9 and 27.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the detected shifted light patterns are compared with characteristic known patterns (tracking shape data as explained in response to claim 1 above; Chen, paragraph 0090, depth map or point cloud tracks whether an object/passenger shifting position).
To claims 12 and 30, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 8 and 26.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the light pattern is assigned to an object type (as explained in response to claim 1 above, shape data).
To claim 13, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claim 1.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the counting event is triggered by the entrance and/or the exiting of the counting region and/or of the counting area of the light pattern (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 14, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claim 1.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the method is suitable for distinguishing, detecting and/or counting persons and objects in facilities and/or vehicles for conveying persons and/or goods (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 23, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claim 19.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach wherein that the location of the counting areas is predefined (Schuyler, Fig. 7).
To claim 24, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claim 16.
Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach characterized that the person and/or object counting device has an interface to a control and/or evaluation apparatus (Chen, interface as shown in Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 10, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0004787) in view of Schuyler et al. (US2004/0153671), Norbert et al. (WO2008084058) and Zuta et al. (US2020/0184663).
To claims 10 and 28, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 9 and 27.
But, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert do not expressly disclose a depth value is determined from a length of the shift.
Zuta teach a light pattern system acquiring information from an environment (abstract), wherein the length of the shift is calculated and a depth value is determined from a length of the shift (paragraph 0073), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Chen, Schuyler and Norbert, in order to implement person and object detection.
Claim(s) 15, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0004787) in view of Schuyler et al. (US2004/0153671), Norbert et al. (WO2008084058) and Buller et al. (US2017/0239892).
To claims 15 and 25, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 1 and 16.
Though Chen, Schuyler and Norbert do not expressly disclose wherein that the light pattern has a beam density ρ.sub.s of 5*10.sup.2/4*π sr.sup.−1≤ρ.sub.s≤10.sup.6/4*π sr.sup.−1, preferential beam density implementation is obvious in the art.
Buller teach using scanning energy beam with power density of at least 5000W/mm2 -in 3D depth sensing applications (paragraphs 0188, 0358, 0370), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Chen, Schuyler and Norbert, in order to provide sufficient illuminance.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0004787) in view of Schuyler et al. (US2004/0153671), Norbert et al. (WO2008084058) and Tanabe et al. (US2019/0346677).
To claim 31, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claim 1.
Despite of obvious interpretation in response to claim 1 above, but Chen, Schuyler and Norbert do not expressly disclose wherein the element for deflecting the radiation from the radiation source generates the light pattern.
Tanabe teach a projection method using an element (15 of Fig. 1) to deflect radiation form a radiation source (11 of Fig. 1) generating light pattern (paragraph 0187), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Chen, Schuyler and Norbert, in order to implement optical path for light pattern projection.
Claim(s) 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2022/0004787) in view of Schuyler et al. (US2004/0153671), Norbert et al. (WO2008084058) and Walters et al. (US2015/0377780).
To claims 32-33, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 16 and 1.
Despite of obvious wavelength application in laser, but Chen, Schuyler and Norbert do not expressly disclose wherein the radiation source is a monochromatic laser with a wavelength in a range from 780 nm to 1000 nm.
Walters teach a device for detecting an analyte includes a light source emitting substantially monochromatic light, wherein the monochromatic light have a wavelength of 300nm to 1100nm (abstract, Figs. 1A-B, paragraph 0080), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method and apparatus of Chen, Schuyler and Norbert, in order to implement diffraction pattern projection.
To claims 34-35, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert teach claims 16 and 31.
But, Chen, Schuyler and Norbert do not expressly disclose wherein the element for deflecting the radiation from the radiation source is a diffractive optical element and generates the light pattern.
Walters teach a device for detecting an analyte includes a light source emitting substantially monochromatic light through a diffraction element (abstract, 101 of Figs. 1A-B, paragraphs 0068-0080), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method and apparatus of Chen, Schuyler and Norbert, in order to implement diffraction pattern projection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, EDWARD URBAN can be reached on (571) 272-7899. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 December 14, 2024