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 filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
In response to amendment, the 112(b) indefiniteness rejection pertaining to the now removed limitation of claim 1 regarding “remov[ing] a component of the waveform data attributable to light reflected from mist” is withdrawn.
Applicant presents that the claim interpretation under 112(f) and the 112(b) indefiniteness rejection stemming therefrom, are improper because independent claim 1 recites “a memory that stores executable components, and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components” represent sufficient structure for performing the functions ascribed to the executable components. However, neither the memory nor the processor invoked 112(f) nor did they raise issues of indefiniteness under 112(b) in the non-final rejection. However, the remaining system components are interpreted under 112(f) due to the language by which they are claimed and due to lacking evidence of sufficient structure for them to perform their recited functions.
Applicant points to fig. 2 and paragraphs 0040 and 0043 of the instant specification as providing the necessary structure for the components at issue to overcome the 112(b) rejection, however, Applicant does not clearly identify the particular structures for each component nor does Applicant explain why the recited structure for each component is sufficient. As read by the Examiner, the specification and the drawings do not provide the necessary structural description to overcome the pending 112(b) indefiniteness rejection or to warrant withdrawing the 112(f) claim interpretation.
Applicant presents that Zhu fails to teach waveform detection at the same, single pixel and subsequent subtraction to yield a desired result, as in amended claims 1, 11 and 19. An updated prior art rejection is made herein in response to this amendment overcoming the scope of Zhu.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by applicant on 03/04/2022. Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are found at least in claims 1, 5-7:
Illumination component configured to emit…which will be interpreted as a light source that emits periodic light pulses (specification 0041);
Pixel array component configured to generate…which will be interpreted as a component that performs a readout of a photo-receiver array, such as any relevant signal processing component (specification 0044);
Distance determination unit configured to measure, record, subtract, and generate…which will be interpreted as a component that analyzes signal information to determine distance, such as any relevant signal processing component (specification 0045);
Waveform analysis component configured to perform and generate…which will be interpreted as a component that performs analysis of a reconstructed waveform signals, such as any relevant signal processing component (specification 0042);
Hazard analysis and decision component configured to generate…which will be interpreted as a component that performs analysis of an output signal, such as any relevant signal processing component (at least specification 0045).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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
Claims 1, 4-10, 24 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 limitations “Illumination component configured to emit…”, “Pixel array component configured to generate…”, “Distance determination unit configured to remove and generate…”, “Waveform analysis component configured to perform and generate…”, “Hazard analysis and decision component configured to generate…”: invoke 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.
As explained in the section 112(f) interpretation above, the claim limitations at issue will be given their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification.
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
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, 5-11, 14-19, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 9234618).
1: Zhu teaches an imaging device [abstract], comprising:
a memory that stores executable components [inherently within computer system 112]; and
a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components [inherently within computer system 112], the executable components comprising:
an illumination component configured to emit a light pulse toward a viewing field [col 8, line 14-21 (laser source); also illumination component inherent in LIDAR device of fig. 6A];
a photo-receiver configured to generate an electrical output proportional to an intensity of light incident on a pixel of the photo-receiver [col 18, line 54-60; fig. 6A];
a pixel array component configured to generate waveform data corresponding to a reflected light pulse received at the pixel based on the electrical output [col 18, line 40-67 which describes imaging and a pixelated pattern of received radiation to spectrally characterize the surrounding environment in a spatially selected or pixelated manner, such that hyperspectral sensor 620 includes both imaging optics and a spectral selectivity module; fig. 6A]; and a distance determination component configured to
measure and record, at a time when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the imaging device, first waveform data representing a portion of a first light pulse reflected by mist and received at the pixel [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance.; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the imaging device”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object],
measure, subsequent to the time when no objects are within the zone of limited detection, second waveform data representing reflected light from a second light pulse received at a pixel [at least by col 5, line 7-67 teaches continuously scanning and determining solid objects from non-solid objects, so it follows that during operation of the imaging device of Zhu, there will be times of scanning wherein a solid object will not be determined and then subsequently times when a solid object will be determined. Therefore, for a given period of time (e.g. hours, day, months, years) during operation of the imaging device wherein an environment is scanned, determining that a solid object is not present will eventually be followed by determining that a solid object is present.],
subtracting the first waveform data from the second waveform data to yield a modified waveform data [col 5, line 7-64 teach that spectral analysis is performed to distinguish objects from non-objects, wherein the non-objects are omitted from a 3D map, wherein for a given field of view spectral filtering is possible, corresponding to a baseline as claimed; and col 21, second paragraph, which teaches non-objects being removed from the 3D map; and corresponding to baseline: col 14, line 55 to end of col. 14], and
generate distance information for an object corresponding to the reflected light pulse based on analysis of the modified waveform data [at least col 5, lines 39-49 teaches ascribing a spatial location (distance) to objects].
Zhu explicitly lacks teaching of receiving two distinct waveforms at the same pixel and then performing subtraction of the waveforms in order to produce a desired result. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that employing a single pixel detector within an imaging system has advantages of high sensitivity and low noise interference, particularly in detection of weaker optical signals. In a case where two waveforms are received at a single pixel detector, it is known in the art of imaging and particularly of lidar imaging, that waveform subtraction involves, for example, subtracting a reference waveform from a measurement waveform in order to determine an accurate spatial measurement and/or to detect differences between waveform characteristics, such as intensity.
5: Zhu teaches the distance determination component is configured to subtract the first waveform data from the second waveform data in response to a determination that the object has entered a zone of limited detection of the imaging device [see rejection of claim 1; col 5, line 7-64 teach that spectral analysis is performed to distinguish objects from non-objects, wherein the non-objects are omitted from a 3D map, wherein for a given field of view spectral filtering is possible, corresponding to a baseline as claimed; and col 21, second paragraph, which teaches non-objects being removed from the 3D map; and corresponding to baseline: col 14, line 55 to end of col. 14].
6: Zhu teaches a waveform analysis component configured to perform a comparison of the modified waveform data with signature profile data that defines characteristic waveform signatures corresponding to respective object classifications, and generate classification data assigning an object classification, of the object classifications, to the object based on a result of the comparison [col 5, line 8-32 teaches classifying and distinguishing objects and compositions; col 19, line 57-col 20, line 3 further teaches signatures; Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles).].
7: Zhu teaches a hazard analysis and decision component configured to generate a control output signal based on the object classification and the distance information [at least col 4, line 45-57; col 19, line 45-56; via controller 610].
8: Zhu teaches the control output signal is configured to instruct a controller to cause a controlled industrial process to enter a safe state [at least col 4, line 45-57, wherein safe navigation via collision avoidance maneuvers using object classification and distance determination is practiced].
9: Zhu teaches to change a depth of a dynamic safety zone being monitored by the imaging device based on the object classification [col 2, line 41-col 3, line 5].
10, 18 mutatis mutandis: Zhu teaches the object classification is at least one of snow, aerosol, water, fog, or mist [see rejection of claim 1 for interpretation of mist, also at least col 20, line 12-21].
11: Zhu teaches a method, comprising:
generating, by a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor device comprising a processor, a first electrical output in proportion to an intensity of first light incident on a pixel of a photo- receiver of the TOF sensor device [col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane; the same passage teaches lidar device 302 (inherent for TOF determination)] at a time when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the TOF sensor device, wherein the first light corresponds to a portion of a first light pulse reflected from mist an received at the pixel [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance.; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object]
generating, by the TOF sensor device, first waveform data corresponding to the portion of the first light pulse based on the first electrical output [col 18, line 54-60, via photo receiver for lidar device; fig. 6A];
generating, by the TOF sensor device subsequent to the time when no objects are within the zone of limited detection, a second electrical output in proportion to an intensity of second light incident on a pixel, wherein the second light corresponds to a portion of a second light pulse reflected at a pixel [col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane; the same passage teaches lidar device 302 (inherent for TOF determination)] at a time when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the TOF sensor device, wherein the first light corresponds to a portion of a first light pulse reflected from mist an received at the pixel [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance.; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object];
generating, by the TOF sensor device, second waveform data corresponding to the portion of the second light pulse received at a pixel based on the second electrical output [col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane];
subtracting, by the TOF sensor device, the first waveform data from the second waveform data to yield modified waveform data [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance]; and
generating, by the TOF sensor device, distance information for an object corresponding to the second light pulse based on analysis of the modified waveform data [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance].
Zhu explicitly lacks teaching of receiving two distinct waveforms at the same pixel and then performing subtraction of the waveforms in order to produce a desired result. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that employing a single pixel detector within an imaging system has advantages of high sensitivity and low noise interference, particularly in detection of weaker optical signals. In a case where two waveforms are received at a single pixel detector, it is known in the art of imaging and particularly of lidar imaging, that waveform subtraction involves, for example, subtracting a reference waveform from a measurement waveform in order to determine an accurate spatial measurement and/or to detect differences between waveform characteristics, such as intensity.
14, 21 mutatis mutandis: Zhu teaches the subtracting comprises subtracting the first waveform data from the second waveform data in response to determining that the object has entered the zone of limited detection of [see rejection of claim 1; col 5, line 7-64 teach that spectral analysis is performed to distinguish objects from non-objects, wherein the non-objects are omitted from a 3D map, wherein for a given field of view spectral filtering is possible, corresponding to a baseline as claimed; and col 21, second paragraph, which teaches non-objects being removed from the 3D map; and corresponding to baseline: col 14, line 55 to end of col. 14].
15, 22 mutatis mutandis: Zhu teaches comparing, by the TOF sensor device, the modified waveform data with signature profile data that defines characteristic waveform signatures corresponding to respective object classifications; and generating, by the TOF sensor device, classification data assigning an object classification, of the object classifications, to the object based on a result of the comparing [col 5, line 8-32 teaches classifying and distinguishing objects and compositions; col 19, line 57-col 20, line 3 further teaches signatures; Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles).].
16, 23 mutatis mutandis: Zhu teaches generating, by the TOF sensor device, a control output signal based on the object classification and the distance information [at least col 4, line 45-57; col 19, line 45-56; via controller 610].
17: Zhu teaches changing a depth of a dynamic safety zone being monitored by the TOF sensor device based on the object classification [col 2, line 41-col 3, line 5].
19. Zhu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, in response to execution, cause a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor device comprising a processor to perform operations [inherently within computer system 112; abstract teaches TOF via lidar], the operations comprising:
emitting, at a time when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the TOF sensor device, a first light pulse into a viewing area [col 8, line 14-21 (laser source); also illumination component inherent in LIDAR device of fig. 6A; col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane; the same passage teaches lidar device 302 (inherent for TOF determination)] at a time when no objects are within a zone of limited detection of the TOF sensor device, wherein the first light corresponds to a portion of a first light pulse reflected from mist an received at the pixel [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance.; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object];
generating a first electrical output proportional to an intensity of first light incident on a pixel of a photo-receiver of the TOF sensor device, wherein the first light corresponds to a portion of the first light pulse reflected by mist and received at a pixel [col 18, line 54-60, via photo receiver for lidar device; fig. 6A; col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance.; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object];
generating, based on the first electrical output, first waveform data corresponding to the portion of the first light pulse received at a pixel [col 18, line 40-67 which describes imaging and a pixelated pattern of received radiation to spectrally characterize the surrounding environment in a spatially selected or pixelated manner, such that hyperspectral sensor 620 includes both imaging optics and a spectral selectivity module; fig. 6A];
emitting, subsequent to the time when no objects are within the zone of limited detection, a second light pulse into the viewing area [col 18, line 54-60, via photo receiver for lidar device; fig. 6A; col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance; regarding the limitation “when no objects are within a zone of limited detection”, this instance would be satisfied when the system of Zhu performs scanning and does not receive indication of any solids objects within the “relevant or appropriate spatial regions within the field of view”, as supported at least by col 5, line 7-32. This passage of Zhu supports the conclusion that not all returned data yields a solid object];
generating a second electrical output proportional to an intensity of second light incident on a pixel, wherein the second light corresponds to a portion of the second light pulse reflected back to the pixel [col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane];
generating, based on the second electrical output, second waveform data corresponding to the portion of the second light pulse [col 18, line 40-67 teaches a detector for generating electrical signals related to an intensity pattern in an imaging plane];
subtracting the first waveform data from the second waveform data to yield a modified waveform data [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance. Additionally, col 21, lines 6-39 which teaches removal of undesired non-solid objects from the point cloud (e.g. water, etc.) leaving only solid objects (e.g. pedestrians, other vehicles). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that mist (as claimed) is a form of liquid, as water droplets within the air. Given that the disclosure of Zhu teaches liquid, gaseous, and water compositions, it follows that mist would reasonably fall within the scope as described in the prior art, since the purpose of the prior art is to distinguish solid objects within a vehicle’s environment (such as pedestrians, roadway markers, other vehicles) from water, liquid, or gaseous (etc.) compositions that may form in the presence of the vehicle that are not relevant to distance determination and collision avoidance]; and
generating distance information for an object corresponding to the pixel based on analysis of the modified waveform data [col 5, line 7-32 teaches distinguishing solid, environmental objects (such as pedestrians, other vehicles, roadway boundaries) from components such as water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide (solid, liquid, or gaseous compositions) for the purpose of analyzing a 3D point map, and considering only the solid environmental objects for distance determination that corresponds to collision avoidance.].
Zhu explicitly lacks teaching of receiving two distinct waveforms at the same pixel and then performing subtraction of the waveforms in order to produce a desired result. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that employing a single pixel detector within an imaging system has advantages of high sensitivity and low noise interference, particularly in detection of weaker optical signals. In a case where two waveforms are received at a single pixel detector, it is known in the art of imaging and particularly of lidar imaging, that waveform subtraction involves, for example, subtracting a reference waveform from a measurement waveform in order to determine an accurate spatial measurement and/or to detect differences between waveform characteristics, such as intensity.
24, 25 mutatis mutandis: Zhu teaches a spot pattern component configured to control the illumination component to emit a pattern of light beams in accordance with a defined spot pattern; and a pattern analysis component configured to determine a degree of deviation between a reflected spot pattern received at the photo-receiver and the defined spot pattern, and initiate a control output in response to determining that the degree of deviation exceeds a threshold [col 12, line 63-col 13, line 6 teaches illumining an object in an environment with a predetermined light pattern and determine the distance to the points on the object based on distortions in the reflected light pattern compared to the illumination pattern; while Zhu does not explicitly teach consideration of a deviation exceeding a threshold, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that while the distortion (deviation) in transmitted and received patterns is indicative of distance, it also follows that if the deviation is so great, of some undesirable magnitude, that some re-calibration or adjustment would need to be made to the system in order to yield a more reasonable or more easily readable/obtainable/accurate result. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that while distortion yields distance information, a distortion too great may not be adequately processed by the system or could make results too difficult or convoluted to compile, thus requiring a system modification in which a signal indicates a distortion beyond a desired or feasible amount for correction or re-calibration purposes.].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 9234618) in view of Uehara (US 2017/0115396).
4: Zhu explicitly lacks, but Uehara teaches a polarizing filter installed on at least one of the illumination component or the photo-receiver [0071].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Zhu with the lidar system with a polarization image sensor with polarizing filter disclosed in Uehara with a reasonable expectation of success because such allows for the output of signals indicative of the presence or absence of an object in an environment surrounding a vehicle.
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 Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights