DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2019 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Yoshizawa et al., 20210072395 A1 ("Yoshizawa") fails to teach the limitation, “determining at least one property of the object as a function of the first pulse width and the second pulse width.” Applicant’s argument is directed to amendment of claim 1, which incorporates canceled claim 2, rejected previously in Non-Final rejection, mailed 11/19/2025. However, Yoshizawa shows in Fig. 7 that object property (fog or non-fog) can be determined as ratio (function) of two pulse widths at high and low signal amplitudes. See also figures 5, 6, [0086]-[0090] for corresponding text description.
Applicant also argues that Yoshizawa fails to teach “wherein the property of the object is determined as a function of a difference between the first pulse width and the second pulse width.” However, the limitation serves to clarify the limitation discussed in item 3 above. As discussed, , Yoshizawa teaches determined an object property based on ratio of two pulse width. The ratio can be considered as a comparison for different, or “a function of a difference.” Applicant’s claim or specification does not require anything more special or distinct for the term “difference.”
Applicant further argues that “the present invention determines at least one object property based on the pulse width of a first and a second pulse alone .” However, the claim does not require this feature. The claim only requires an object property be determined by “a function of the first pulse width and the second pulse width.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., determine an object property based on a single pulse width alone) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that Yoshizawa fails to teach an object property being determined based on a function of a ratio between the first and second width. However, as discussed for claim 1, Yoshizawa teaches this limitation in Fig. 7. Also, see discussion above in items 3-51.
Regarding other claims, applicant made no further arguments other than relying on argument presented for claim 1, which has been fully addressed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, and 3-11 are objected because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, before “a detector unit,” insert the word –by--.
All other claims are objected to by claim dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshizawa et al., US 20210072395 A1, (“Yoshizawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshizawa teaches a method for object recognition by an active optical sensor system ([0059] “The distance measuring device 1”), comprising:
registering light reflected by an object in an environment of the sensor system by a detector unit of the sensor system and generating a sensor signal on the basis of the registered light ([0061] “The light-receiving element 15 receives a signal radiated out from the light-emitting element 12 and reflected by an object, and outputs a reception signal corresponding to the received signal strength.”);
determining a first pulse width of a signal pulse of the sensor signal by a computer unit, the first pulse width being established by a predetermined first limit value for an amplitude of the sensor signal ([0062] “The comparator 19 divides the reception signal according to two threshold values… The two threshold values are a first threshold value (low threshold value) and a second threshold value (high threshold value) that is higher…”; [0065] “the time span (first time span) from when the low signal becomes equal to or greater than the low threshold value until the low signal becomes less than the low threshold value is taken to be the pulse width of the low signal, and the time span (second time span) from when the high signal becomes equal to or greater than the high threshold value until the high signal becomes less than the high threshold value is taken to be the pulse width of the high signal.”);
determining a second pulse width of the signal pulse by the computer unit, the second pulse width being established by a predetermined second limit value for the amplitude of the sensor signal ([0062] “The comparator 19 divides the reception signal according to two threshold values… The two threshold values are a first threshold value (low threshold value) and a second threshold value (high threshold value) that is higher…”; [0065] “the time span (first time span) from when the low signal becomes equal to or greater than the low threshold value until the low signal becomes less than the low threshold value is taken to be the pulse width of the low signal, and the time span (second time span) from when the high signal becomes equal to or greater than the high threshold value until the high signal becomes less than the high threshold value is taken to be the pulse width of the high signal.”); and
determining at least one property of the object by the computer unit as a function of the first pulse width and the second pulse width ([0063] “the signal processing unit 10 also performs a process of distinguishing between fog or the like and an object.”; [0072] “the signal processing unit 10 distinguishes whether the reception signal is valid or invalid from the relationship between the pulse width of the low signal and the pulse width of the high signal (S4).” Note that while Yoshizawa uses language like “fog” vs. “object” and/or “valid” vs. “invalid”, in practice Yoshizawa is classifying some ‘objects’ as fog and other ‘objects’ as “non-fog objects” and choosing to ignore those objects classified as fog.),
wherein the property of the object is determined as a function of a difference between the first pulse width and the second pulse width ([0092-93] “Additionally, in FIG. 7, a straight line separating the “real pulse” point and the “fog pulse” point is drawn. This straight line is the line of a first-order function having a positive slope, and is referred to as the “threshold line”. The “real pulse” point is above the threshold line (on the second axis side), and the “fog pulse” point is below the threshold line (on the first axis side)… In the illustration in FIG. 7, the function is y=ax−20.” Note that the presented line, with a slope of 1, as is visually apparent in FIG. 7, mathematically describes a classification based on whether the difference between the two values exceeds 20.).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the property of the object is determined as a function of a ratio between the first pulse width to the second pulse width (Fig. 7, [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a classification of the object is carried out by means of the computer unit as a function of the first and the second pulse width ([0063] “In the signal processing unit 10,… Herein, a control method of the distance measuring device 1 is built in as the computer program, and the distance to an object is computed according to the ToF (Time of Flight) method. Additionally, the signal processing unit 10 also performs a process of distinguishing between fog or the like and an object.”).
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus of claim 12 matches the scope of the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of LaChapelle et al., US 20180306926 A1 (“LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the at least one property contains a reflectivity of the object.
LaChapelle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a multi-threshold pulse detection system which also measures the reflectivity of the object ([0161] “the range determination and the intensity measurement units may use a plurality of amplitude detection circuits (including comparators and TDCs such as those illustrated in FIG. 13) and an envelope detector, such as the envelope detector 614 of FIG. 13, to determine the envelope of the returned pulse which, in turn, can be processed to determine a highly accurate range to the target as well as an intensity profile of the returned pulse. In this case, the intensity profile of the returned pulse can be used to characterize the pulse and determine an absolute or relative reflectivity of the target based on calibration information (e.g., stored test measurements, known physical or mathematical principles, a look-up table, curve-fitting parameters, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Yoshizawa with the reflectivity determination of LaChapelle to extract more information out of the reflected light pulses.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach wherein at least one further pulse width of the signal pulse is determined by means of the computer unit, each further pulse width of the at least one further pulse width being established by an associated predetermined further limit value for the amplitude of the sensor signal; and the at least one property of the object is determined by the computer unit as a function of the at least one further pulse width.
LaChapelle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a multi-threshold pulse detection system for determining object properties via pulse shape characteristics ([0144] “In the graph of FIG. 14, the received incoming light pulse is re-created based on the signals from the TDCs 612 associated with the various thresholds T.sub.1 through T.sub.6. More particularly the points in the graph of FIG. 14 indicate times (on the x-axis) at which one of the amplitude detection circuits 608 of FIG. 13 measured that the detected light signal went through one of the amplitude thresholds T.sub.1-T.sub.6 (on the y-axis) in the rising or falling direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Yoshizawa with more than two thresholds to increase the amount of information about the pulse shape.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second limit value is greater than the first limit value […] ([0062] “The two threshold values are a first threshold value (low threshold value) and a second threshold value (high threshold value) that is higher”)
But Yoshizawa does not explicitly teach wherein the second limit value is greater than the first limit value and the first limit value is greater than a predetermined noise level of the detector unit; and/or the second limit value is greater than the first limit value, and the second limit value is less than a predetermined saturation limit value of the detector unit.
LaChapelle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a multi-threshold pulse detection system for determining object properties via pulse shape characteristics, and contemplates the relevant range for threshold values ([0148] “Here the detection threshold T.sub.D is chosen to be between the maximum values of the returned pulses and the zero or noise level of the system.”). It would be well understood that such a consideration would apply to all threshold values when multiple threshold values are used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have kept the threshold values of Yoshizawa within the range between the noise level and the saturation value, as signals below and above these values are either meaningless or nonexistent.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Kolb et al., US 20170001736 A1 (“Kolb”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1. Yoshizawa fails to teach:
wherein the at least one property contains an extent of the object in a radial direction with respect to the sensor system.
Kolb, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the inference of surface properties based on the shape of a returned pulse, including the broadening of a pulse resulting from surfaces with an oblique angle – thus having a large extent in the radial direction ([0020] “Sub-diagrams a), b), c) in FIG. 2 show different analog input pulse shapes 13, 14, 15 and resultant digitized input pulse shapes 16, 17, 18. The different analog input pulse shapes 13, 14, 15 are the result of the light pulses having output pulse shape 19 emitted by a laser light source, depicted identically in each case here. Reflection at different bodies 20, 21, 22 with reflection surfaces 23, 24, 25, 26 corresponding to different surfaces results in each case in different and specific analog input pulse shapes 13, 14, 15”; [0022] “In sub-diagram b), input pulse shape 14 is widened as compared to output pulse shape 19. The widened, i.e., input-delayed input pulse shape 14 is generated as a result of the light pulse being reflected by each sub-region of reflection surface 24 at a different distance and, therefore, with a different transit time. A surface topographically inclined compared to the propagation direction of the light pulse may therefore be deduced.”).
While Kolb uses this information in the context of digitized sampling of a return pulse, such an understanding of the effect on the return pulse shape could reasonably be applied in the context of the threshold method of Yoshizawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the teachings of inference based on pulse shape as taught by Kolb into the method of Yoshizawa to detect the inclination of an object surface.
Claims 7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Day et al., US 20230243919 A1 (“Day”).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach
wherein whether the object is part of a roadway for a motor vehicle or whether the object is part of a roadway marking of the roadway is established by means of the computer unit on the basis of the first and the second pulse width.
Day, in the same field of endeavor, contemplates the detection of roadway markings based on their unique pulse shape properties ([0263] “At step 1105, the at least one processor receive from at least one sensor a reflection signal indicative of light reflected from a portion of a road, wherein the reflection signal spans a first duration (e.g., above a threshold) and comprising a narrow peak having a maximal amplitude which is at least twice the maximal amplitude of the rest of the reflection signal, wherein the narrow peak spans a second duration which is at least 5 times shorter than the first duration. An example of such a reflection signal is depicted in FIG. 15. The spanning (or stretching) of the reflection signal for a relatively long spans results from the road being viewed at relatively acute angle. The peak has much higher amplitude that the rest of the signal because the road marking which cause the peak reflection is much more reflective than the road. The peak is much shorter in time because it is narrow with respect to the road area covered in the respective pixel.”). The contemplation presented by Day could reasonably be adapted to the data configuration of Yoshizawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the method of differentiating road markings, as contemplated by Day, into the method of Yoshizawa to be able to infer meaning from the road markings.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshizawa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
a method for the at least partially automatic control of a motor vehicle, comprising: determining at least one property of an object in an environment of the motor by a method for object recognition as claimed in claim 1; and controlling the motor vehicle at least partially automatically as a function of the at least one property of the object.
Day, in the same field of endeavor, contemplates automated motor vehicle control based on the result of object detection ([0306] “In any of the embodiments described above, any of methods 1700, 1800, or 1900 may further include causing a change in an operational state of the vehicle based on a relative location and the determined type of the classified particular object.”).
The distinction between a solid object vs. fog, as presented by Yoshizawa, has obvious applicability within the context of vehicle control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the classification method of Yoshizawa within the context of automated vehicle control, as presented in Day, so that a vehicle may make appropriate decisions regarding, for example, whether an object, like fog, may be driven through.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshizawa in view of Day teaches the method of claim 10,
wherein the at least one property of an object is determined by classification of the object carried out by the computer unit as a function of the first and the second pulse width (Yoshizawa: [0063] “In the signal processing unit 10,… Herein, a control method of the distance measuring device 1 is built in as the computer program, and the distance to an object is computed according to the ToF (Time of Flight) method. Additionally, the signal processing unit 10 also performs a process of distinguishing between fog or the like and an object.”); and the motor vehicle is controlled at least partially automatically as a function of a result of the classification (Day: [0306] “In any of the embodiments described above, any of methods 1700, 1800, or 1900 may further include causing a change in an operational state of the vehicle based on a relative location and the determined type of the classified particular object.”).
Regarding claim 13, the apparatus of claim 13 matches the scope of the method of claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST 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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 The claim was previously rejected under 103 with the same reference citing. There is no new ground of rejection by changing basis from 103 to 102 relying on the same reference citing. See MPEP 1207.03(a).
Prosecution Insights