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 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended limitation is taught by D1 ad even if we assume that in second frame the lowest priority is scanned first then high priority is scanned but then in third frame the low priority will be scanned after high priority in second frame .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 17, 18, 19 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 US 20150332102 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 17, 18, 19 D1 teaches
1. A method for controlling a distance measurement apparatus including a light emitting device configured to change a direction of emission of a light beam and a light receiving device that detects a reflected light beam produced by the emission of the light beam, the method comprising:
acquiring data representing a plurality of images acquired at different points in time by an image sensor that acquires an image of a scene;[0010-0037](fig. 1-4)
determining, based on the data representing the plurality of images, a degree of priority of distance measurement of one or more physical objects included in the plurality of images; and[0011-0015]
executing distance measurement of the one or more physical objects by causing the light emitting device to emit the light beam in a direction corresponding to the degree of priority and in an order corresponding to the degree of priority and causing the light receiving device to detect the reflected light beam.(claim 7)
measurement of physical objects included in the plurality of images; and executing distance measurement of the physical objects by causing the light emitting device to emit the light beam toward a first object among the physical objects, causing the light emitting device to emit the light beam toward a second object having a lower degree of priority than the first object after emitting the light beam toward the first object(second frame scan of fig. 16 high priority 1604 then in third frame scan 1602 )
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the distance measurement apparatus is mounted on a movable body, the method includes acquiring, from the movable body, data representing a movement of the movable body, and(claim 1)
the degree of priority is determined based on the data representing the plurality of images and the data representing the movement of the movable body.(claim 1)
4. The method according to claim 2, further comprising, after having executed the distance measurement, outputting, to the movable body, data containing information identifying the physical object [0004]and information indicating a distance to the physical object.[0004]
7. The method according to claim 1, further comprising repeating more than once a cycle including acquiring the data representing the images, determining the degree of priority of distance measurement of the physical object, and executing the distance measurement of the physical object. (Constantly performing operation [0014])
8. The method according to claim 7, wherein for a physical object on which the distance measurement was executed in a cycle, the distance measurement is continued in a next cycle without determining the degree of priority. (Constantly performing operation [0014])
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a duration of illumination with the light beam according to the degree of priority.[0024]
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving device include the image sensor.(inherent in this application)
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the image sensor acquires the images from light emitted by the light emitting device.(Lidar inherent)
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Regarding claim 3 D1 teaches
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein determining the degree of priority includes generating a motion vector of the one or more physical objects based on the plurality of images[0014-0015], generating, based on the data representing the movement of the movable body, a motion vector of a stationary object([0015] in frame of the vehicle the vehicle is stationary) that is generated due to the movement of the movable body, and([0018] relative speed is calculated, hence it is obvious that in the frame of vehicle the car is considered stationary and the second object is moving )
determining the degree of priority based on a relative velocity vector that is a difference between the motion vector of the physical object and the motion vector of the stationary object.[0018]
Although does not say that the object is stationary and relative velocity calculated based on stationary object [0016] also teaches that markers of the road can be determined and based on the system of coordinate choice (moving body , marker ) it is just mathematical manipulation of the relative velocity calculation.(choice of coordinate system is completely arbitrary, can be car itself or marker)
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20190302767 A1.
Regarding claims 5, 6 D1 teaches
6. The method according to claim 2, wherein acquiring the data representing the plurality of images includes acquiring data representing first, second and third images consecutively acquired by the image sensor, and[0014]
determining the degree of priority includes generating a first motion vector of the physical object based on the first image and the second image, [0014-0015]
generating a second motion vector of the physical object based on the second image and the third image, generating, [0014-0015](implicit)
based on the data representing the movement of the movable body, a motion vector of a stationary object that is generated due to the movement of the movable body, generating a first relative velocity vector that is a difference between the first motion vector and the motion vector of the stationary object, [0014-0018]
13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the distance measurement apparatus is mounted on board a movable body, and(car)
determining the degree of priority includes extracting a vector component of a relative velocity vector acting toward the movable body, the relative velocity vector being a difference between a motion vector of the physical object and a motion vector of a stationary object, and[0018](stationary object in current case is movable object in its own system of coordinate relative speed is vector component)
but does not teach
generating a second relative velocity vector that is a difference between the second motion vector and the motion vector of the stationary object, and
determining the degree of priority based on a difference between the first relative velocity vector and the second relative velocity vector.
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the degree of priority is determined based on a magnitude of a time change in the relative velocity vector.
14. The method according to claim 13, wherein the magnitude of the vector component acting toward the movable body assumes a value obtained by multiplying the vector component acting toward the movable body by a coefficient corresponding to a straight-forward component of an acceleration vector of the movable body.
Which is basically mean using acceleration
obtained by using two or more consecutive images of the plurality of images
16. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 3, wherein determining the degree of priority includes extracting an orthogonal component of an acceleration vector of the movement body acting orthogonally to a forward movement of the movable body, the acceleration vector being obtained by using two or more consecutive images of the plurality of images and determining the degree of priority based on a magnitude of a vector component of the relative velocity vector of each of the physical objects, which is identical to the orthogonal component.
D2 teaches
degree of priority is determined based on acceleration of the object[0033](distributions based on acceleration)(and weights/ priority is assigned based on distribution [0027], [0071])[0062-0063]
determining the degree of priority based on a magnitude of the vector component acting toward the movable body. [0033](distributions based on acceleration)(and weights/ priority is assigned based on distribution [0027], [0071])[0062-0063](and then based on that main prediction is determined)
Although D2 does not say obtained by using two or more consecutive images of the plurality of images D2 teaches obtaining velocities using sensor data and therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by use two images to identify the coordinates of the object and then use the coordinate with time between the images in order to identify the velocity vectors and acceleration vectors.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to predict the movement of the object[0076] and based on that prediction concentrate on the distance to the object at next moment of time(as desired by D1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20170003392 A1.
Although D1 does not teach D3 teaches
10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a number of occurrences of the emission of the light beam and detection of the reflected light beam according to the degree of priority.[0069-0070]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to increase the resolution of the desired object or region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art does not teach or render obvious normalizing the acceleration component when a magnitude of the straight- forward component of the acceleration vector of the movable body is greater than or equal to a threshold
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645