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 .
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/1/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/1/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Headings are required for the subsections of the specification.
Each paragraph of the specification requires numbering.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlittenbauer et al (WO 2015149929 A1) in view of Yeruhami et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0249354).
With respect to claim 1, Schlittenbauer et al disclose: An active sensor system [ taught by figure 3 ] having a first emitter unit [ taught by lighting element (3) ], a second emitter unit [ taught by lighting element (4) ], a detector unit [ taught by detector device (2) ] and a computing unit [ taught by control device (1) ], wherein the first emitter unit is configured to emit a first measurement signal into a first emission spatial region in an environment of the sensor system [ defined by the field (18) for lighting element (3) ]; the second emitter unit is configured to emit a second measurement signal into a second emission spatial region in the environment [ defined by the field (19) for the lighting element (4) ]; a sensor field of view is given by a first overlapping region of the first emission spatial region with a detector field of view of the detector unit and by a second overlapping region (SF2) of the second emission spatial region with the detector field of view [ figure 3 shows an overlapping of field (18) and field (19) including object (15) ]; the detector unit is configured to generate at least one detector signal on the basis of portions of the first measurement signal and/or of the second measurement signal which are reflected in the sensor field of view [ page 5 of the provided translation states, “…a detector device 2 and a control device 1. The detector device 2 is designed as a photo-mixing detector, which has a plurality of arranged in a rectangular grid pixels having. For each of these pixels, two electrodes are provided, which collect electrons excited by light incident on the surface of the detector device 2 in order to determine a light intensity. In this case, it is determined by an externally supplied by the control device 1 modulation signal 12, to which of the two electrodes, the electrons are guided…” ]; and the computing unit is configured to generate a measurement data set on the basis of the at least one detector signal [ met by determining light intensity ], wherein the computing unit is configured to: identify, on the basis of the at least one detector signal, at least one section of the sensor field of view which is shaded with respect to the first emitter unit and/or with respect to the second emitter unit [ page 2 of the provided translation states, “…Accordingly, for sub-illuminated image areas, the amplitude of the modulation of one or more of the lighting elements can be increased…”; thus not explicitly teaching shading of an imaged area ]; and generate the measurement data set taking into account the at least one section and/or to generate correction data for correcting the measurement data set on the basis of the at least one section [ met by increasing the amplitude of modulation of sub-illuminated image areas ].
Figures 14D and 14E of Yeruhami et al teach that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application that a foreground object (1406) blocking a beam (1403) degraded the reflected signal corresponding to pixels detected from a background object (1408).
Paragraph [0315] of Yeruhami et al states, “…Accordingly, similar to FIGS. 14C, 14D, and 14E, region 1403 (e.g., corresponding to one or more pixels comprising output based on region 1403) may be aggregated with signals associated with region 1404 (e.g., corresponding to one or more pixels comprising output based on region 1404) and/or region 1410 (e.g., corresponding to one or more pixels comprising output based on region 1410). This aggregation may improve signal accuracy, resolution, or the like for signals related to background object 1408′…”; thus, indicating a need for improving the output of pixel regions in a background object being blocked by a foreground object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the device of Schlittenbauer et al to respond to shaded background reflected regions because: Yeruhami et al taught this was a known problem in LIDAR systems needing a solution that improved signal quality in the reflection from a shaded region; and Schlittenbauer et al taught means to increase the reflective energy of a region via transmitted energy from a beam not blocked.
Claim 12 is rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the device of Schlittenbauer et al detects intensity of signals based on the emission from elements (3) and (4) and, as such, emission from light source (4) would generate more reflected energy than from light source (3); thus, indicating a section of overlapping field of view subject due to blockage.
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 13 is met by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 2, because the combination meets the first “and/or” limitation.
Claim 3 is met by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 2, because the system of Schlittenbauer et al uses signals detected by both the first (3) and second (4) light sources to make depth measurements.
Page 4 of the translation of Schlittenbauer et al states, “…The control device can be designed, in particular, to determine for at least one pixel as a function of the depth information of the pixel whether it is illuminated by the first and / or by the second luminous element. Accordingly, the control device can adjust the luminance information of the pixel exclusively the amplitude signal for lighting elements that actually illuminate the corresponding pixel…”.
Control of luminance of the light sources (3) and (4) meets a correction rule as set forth by claim 4; thus, rendering claim 4 rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 3.
With regard to claim 6, figure 14A of Yeruhami et al teaches and arrangement of targets wherein the two beams generated by the device of Schlittenbauer would have been blocked by the first and second pixel areas with respect to the third.
Therefore, identification of this situation would have been the result of a loss of intensity detected by detection system (2).
With regard to claim 7, figure 6A of Yeruhami et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used first and second detectors to detect field of view that overlap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using two detectors to detect the field of view rather than one, as shown by Schlittenbauer et al, because Yeruhami et al taught this was an alternative structure performing the same function.
Both Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al disclose LIDAR systems; thus, rendering claim 8 rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1.
The device of Schlittenbauer et al uses detected signals to make depth measurements; thus, rendering claim 9 rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1, teaches: wherein the active sensor system the computing unit is configured to: identify, on the basis of the at least one detector signal, at least one first section of the sensor field of view which is shaded with respect to the first emitter unit and is not shaded with
respect to the second emitter unit [ the device of Schlittenbauer et al detects intensity of signals based on the emission from elements (3) and (4) and, as such, emission from light source (4) would generate more reflected energy than from light source (3); thus, indicating a section of overlapping field of view subject to blockage ], generate first information for assigning the at least one first section to at least one corresponding first part of the measurement data set and to transmit it to the further computing unit [ the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1, identifies pixel areas subject to less reflection due to being blocked ]; and the further computing unit is configured to characterize the object depending on the first information [ the pixel area blocked is characterized by intensity detected ] and/or to initiate a risk-reducing measure depending on the first information [ adjusting the intensity of the light sources is a risk reducing measure ].
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al teaches: the computing unit is configured to: identify, on the basis of the at least one detector signal, at least one second section of the sensor field of view which is shaded with respect to the first emitter unit and is shaded with respect to the second emitter unit [ figure 14A of Yeruhami et al teaches and arrangement of targets wherein the two beams generated by the device of Schlittenbauer would have been blocked by the first and second pixel areas with respect to the third. Therefore, identification of this situation would have been the result of a loss of intensity detected by detection system (2). ], generate second information for assigning the at least one second section to at least one corresponding second part of the measurement data set and to transmit it to the further computing unit [ a low intensity measurement resulting for the target situation shown by figure 14A of Yeruhami et al ] and the further computing unit is configured to characterize the object depending on the second information [ depth measurements made by the system produced by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al ] and/or to initiate a risk-reducing measure depending on the second information [ met by adjustment of the intensity of transmission by the light sources used in the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al ].
Both Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al set forth active sensor systems that create data characterizing a target object; thus, rendering claim 14 rejected by the combination of Schlittenbauer et al and Yeruhami et al, as applied to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645