DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedclock (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgsnco) in view of Wang (PGPub 2008/0166023), hereafter referred to as Wang.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (PGPub 2008/0166023), hereafter referred to as Wang.
Speedclock discloses 1. A speed detecting method, applied to a mobile phone comprising a distance computing apparatus and a speed computing apparatus, the speed detecting method comprising: (a) computing an object to be detected distance between the mobile phone and an objected to be detected via the distance computing apparatus; (Speedclock, minute 1:10-1:25, shows the phone determining the distance from an object to the phone)and (b) computing a moving speed of the object to be detected. (Speedclock, minute 1:45 – 2:00 shows the phone capturing speed of a vehicle)
Speedclock does not give details of their algorithm, and therefore does not expressly disclose “(b) computing a moving speed of the object to be detected according to the object to be detected distance via the speed computing apparatus. “
Wang discloses “(b) computing a moving speed of the object to be detected according to the object to be detected distance via the speed computing apparatus. “ (Wang, paragraph 9, “[0009] An alternative technology, LiDAR, uses pulsed laser light instead of radio waves to measure vehicle speeds. A LiDAR device can aim a pulsed narrow beam of light at a target vehicle and measure the time it takes to receive the reflected signal. Knowing the speed of light, the range of the target vehicle can be calculated. If the laser pulse is applied continuously and the target vehicle is moving, the range will change with time and the difference in time it takes the transmitted signal to strike the target and return can be used to measure the speed of the target vehicle. The laser beam is much narrower compared to the beam width of radar systems. Therefore, LiDAR can pinpoint to a particular target and is also more difficult to detect.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to determine speed from speedclock using the method of Wang.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been as an efficient way of calculating speed.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Speedclock with Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Speedclock with Wang discloses 2. The speed detecting method of claim 1, wherein the mobile phone further comprises a light emitting device, wherein the step (a) controls the light emitting device to illuminate the object to be detected before computes the object to be detected distance. (Wang, paragraph 9, “[0009] An alternative technology, LiDAR, uses pulsed laser light instead of radio waves to measure vehicle speeds. A LiDAR device can aim a pulsed narrow beam of light at a target vehicle and measure the time it takes to receive the reflected signal. Knowing the speed of light, the range of the target vehicle can be calculated. If the laser pulse is applied continuously and the target vehicle is moving, the range will change with time and the difference in time it takes the transmitted signal to strike the target and return can be used to measure the speed of the target vehicle. The laser beam is much narrower compared to the beam width of radar systems. Therefore, LiDAR can pinpoint to a particular target and is also more difficult to detect.”)
Speedclock with Wang discloses 3. The speed detecting method of claim 1, wherein the distance computing apparatus uses laser to compute the object to be detected distance. (Wang, paragraph 9, “[0009] An alternative technology, LiDAR, uses pulsed laser light instead of radio waves to measure vehicle speeds. A LiDAR device can aim a pulsed narrow beam of light at a target vehicle and measure the time it takes to receive the reflected signal. Knowing the speed of light, the range of the target vehicle can be calculated. If the laser pulse is applied continuously and the target vehicle is moving, the range will change with time and the difference in time it takes the transmitted signal to strike the target and return can be used to measure the speed of the target vehicle. The laser beam is much narrower compared to the beam width of radar systems. Therefore, LiDAR can pinpoint to a particular target and is also more difficult to detect.”)
Speedclock with Wang discloses 4. The speed detecting method of claim 1, wherein the distance computing apparatus is a depth sensor which acquires image depth information and acquires the object to be detected distance based on the image depth information. (Wang, paragraph 9, “[0009] An alternative technology, LiDAR, uses pulsed laser light instead of radio waves to measure vehicle speeds. A LiDAR device can aim a pulsed narrow beam of light at a target vehicle and measure the time it takes to receive the reflected signal. Knowing the speed of light, the range of the target vehicle can be calculated. If the laser pulse is applied continuously and the target vehicle is moving, the range will change with time and the difference in time it takes the transmitted signal to strike the target and return can be used to measure the speed of the target vehicle. The laser beam is much narrower compared to the beam width of radar systems. Therefore, LiDAR can pinpoint to a particular target and is also more difficult to detect.”)
Claims 5-8 are rejected under similar grounds as claims 1-4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672