CTNF 18/027,894 CTNF 64627 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 3/22/2023, 8/5/2024, 9/16/2024, 7/22/2025 and 5/26/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 3/22/2023 are approved by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Motoyama et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0231176) . With respect to claim 1, Motoyama et al disclose: A method for identifying a Z-plane [ the abstract teaches a device for determining a normal to the flat plane of a road surface ] , the method comprising: receiving distance data describing distances between a sensor that captured the distance data and a plurality of surfaces in an environment of the sensor, wherein at least one of the surfaces is a Z-plane [ taught by the operation of the laser range finder (22) ] ; generating a point cloud based on the distance data, the point cloud in a frame of reference of the sensor [ paragraph [0110] states, “…The laser range finder 22 projects an infrared light laser while varying its angle with respect to the horizontal direction and, when the projected infrared light laser is reflected from an obstacle, also quantifies the direction and distance of the obstacle from the moving body 11 on the basis of the reciprocation time of the infrared light laser by a so-called time-of-flight (ToF) method; the laser range finder 22 then outputs the quantified direction and distance to the pixel position calculation unit 306 and the environment mapping unit 321 as a three-dimensional point cloud…” ] ; identifying a basis vector representing a peak direction across the point cloud [ paragraph [0129] states, “…In the road surface flat plane normal detection, a dominant normal direction in pixels in a region of the normal map belonging to the road surface, which has been supplied from the image recognition unit 304 , is detected as the normal direction of the road surface…” ] ; transforming the point cloud into a frame of reference of the basis vector [ paragraph [0132] states , “…Then, a histogram is generated from the remaining normals, dominant normals are extracted, and information on each normal constituted by the zenith angle θ and the azimuth angle φ is converted into an orthogonal coordinate system…” ] ; and identifying a Z-plane in the transformed point cloud [ paragraph [0132] states, “…the converted information is output as a normal vector N[nx, ny, nz] of a flat plane S forming the road surface…” ]. With respect to claim 16, Motoyama et al disclose: An imaging system comprising: a time-of-flight (TOF) depth sensor to obtain distance data describing distances between the TOF depth sensor and a plurality of surfaces in an environment of the TOF depth sensor [ paragraph [0053] states, “…Furthermore, when reflected light from the obstacle 12 or the like is received, the laser range finder 22 quantifies a distance to the obstacle 12 from a difference time between a timing when the infrared light is projected and a timing when the reflected light is received, by a so-called time-of-flight (ToF) method…” ] ; and a processor [ taught by figure 5 ] to: receive the distance data from the TOF depth sensor [ taught by the laser range finder (22) feeding data to the environment mapping unit (321) in figure 5 ] ; generate a point cloud based on the distance data, the point cloud in a frame of reference of the TOF depth sensor [ [ paragraph [0110] states, “…The laser range finder 22 projects an infrared light laser while varying its angle with respect to the horizontal direction and, when the projected infrared light laser is reflected from an obstacle, also quantifies the direction and distance of the obstacle from the moving body 11 on the basis of the reciprocation time of the infrared light laser by a so-called time-of-flight (ToF) method; the laser range finder 22 then outputs the quantified direction and distance to the pixel position calculation unit 306 and the environment mapping unit 321 as a three-dimensional point cloud…” ] ; identify a basis vector representing a peak direction across the point cloud [ paragraph [0129] states, “…In the road surface flat plane normal detection, a dominant normal direction in pixels in a region of the normal map belonging to the road surface, which has been supplied from the image recognition unit 304 , is detected as the normal direction of the road surface…” ] ; transform the point cloud into a frame of reference of the basis vector [ paragraph [0132] states , “…Then, a histogram is generated from the remaining normals, dominant normals are extracted, and information on each normal constituted by the zenith angle θ and the azimuth angle φ is converted into an orthogonal coordinate system…” ] ; and identify a Z-plane in the transformed point cloud [ paragraph [0132] states, “…the converted information is output as a normal vector N[nx, ny, nz] of a flat plane S forming the road surface…” ]. Claims 3 and 18 are met by the operation of the pixel position calculation unit (306). Claims 4 and 19 are met by the operation of the laser range finder (22) and pixel position calculation unit in light of figure 1 and paragraph [0110}. Claim 10 is taught by steps 14 to 18 of figure 12. Paragraph [0132] states, “…Then, a histogram is generated from the remaining normals, dominant normals are extracted, and information on each normal constituted by the zenith angle θ and the azimuth angle φ is converted into an orthogonal coordinate system; thereafter, as illustrated in the rightmost part of FIG. 7, the converted information is output as a normal vector N[nx, ny, nz] of a flat plane S forming the road surface…” ; thus, teaching claims 7 and 8. Paragraph [0132] states, “… the converted information is output as a normal vector N[nx, ny, nz] of a flat plane S forming the road surface…” ; thus, teaching claims 11 and 12. Claim 21 is taught by the polarization camera (21). Claim 22 is taught by output unit (106); paragraph [0079] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0231176) in view of Palubiak (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0302553) . Palubiak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the present application that a laser range finder included a light source (104) and an image sensor (114). Therefore, the subject matter of claims 2 and 17 would have been obvious as a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan because the laser range finder (22) disclosed by Motoyama et al would have required known components, such as taught by Palubiak . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0231176) . Because the device of Motoyama et al required determining the surfaces of objects in a 3D point cloud, claims 5 and 20 would have been a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan in that multiplying direction and distance was a well-known mathematical process for defining points in a 3D space . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6, 9, 13-15 and 23 are 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. 07-100 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/027,894 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/027,894 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/027,894 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/027,894 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/027,894 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights