Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/223,661

Device and Method for Detecting Objects in a Monitored Zone

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 19, 2023
Examiner
ALSOMIRI, ISAM A
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sick AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
137 granted / 200 resolved
+16.5% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
213
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.1%
+5.1% vs TC avg
§102
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 200 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/223,661 CTNF 79480 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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) 1-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0122329 (Prinz et al. hereinafter D1) in view of US 2022/0137227 (Armstrong et al. hereinafter D2) . Referring to claim 1, A device for detecting objects in a monitored zone comprising at least one LiDAR sensor (D1, [0013], [0031], [0041], claims 8–10) for transmitting transmitted light beams into the monitored zone for scanning a plurality of measurement points and for generating measurement data from transmitted light remitted or reflected by the measurement points, with the measurement data comprising radial speeds of the measurement points (D1, [0013], [0018], [0024]); and a control and evaluation unit for evaluating the measurement data, wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to detect polarization dependent intensities of the transmitted light remitted or reflected by the measurement points (D1, [0014], [0021], [0041]), the measurement data comprise the polarization dependent intensities, and Segmenting objects based on movement and polarization (D1, [0020], [0027], [0029]). D1 does not expressly disclose: 1) The use of an FMCW LiDAR sensor specifically (rather, it generally references LiDAR and radar) and 2) The explicit segmentation of measurement points into objects/object segments using both radial speed and polarization-dependent intensities. D2 teaches coherent LiDAR sensors (specifically FMCW LiDAR) that acquire both spatial coordinates and Doppler-derived (radial) velocity for each point in a point cloud (D2, [0019], [0022], claims 2–3). D2 explicitly teaches the segmentation process using both position and velocity data to cluster measurement points into objects/object segments (D2, [0022], [0060], [0041], [0050], [0059], claim 7). D2 describes clustering methods (e.g., K-means) and hypothesis testing for segmenting points, and further suggests that other attributes (such as intensity or polarization) may be included in the feature space for segmentation ([0060]: “Additional dimensions...can include intensity values, lateral velocities...and so on.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the FMCW LiDAR and segmentation methods of D2 in the system of D1 to improve real-time segmentation and object identification, yielding predictable results. Re claim 2. The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to filter the measurement points using the polarization dependent intensities of the transmitted light remitted or reflected by the measurement points and/or the radial speed of the measurement points (D1 [0018, 0061]). Alternatively, D2 also teaches filtering measurement points based on velocity or other attributes to focus processing on relevant points and reduce noise (see D2, [0025], [0066]). Filtering by speed or polarization is a routine step in signal processing to improve segmentation accuracy and computational efficiency Re claim 3. The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine radial speeds of the objects and/or object segments and to extract features of the objects and/or object segments using the radial speeds of the objects and/or object segments (D1 [0023-24]). Re claim 4. The device in accordance with claim 3, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to classify the objects and/or object segments using the radial speeds of the objects and/or object segments (D1 [0024, 0027]). Re claim 5. The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to discard measurement points having a radial speed under a predefined threshold value for the evaluation (D1 [0025, 0031]). 6. The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the FMCW LiDAR sensor is stationary (D1 figure 1 and [0031, 0043, 0046). 7. The device in accordance with claim 6, wherein the device has at least one further FMCW LiDAR sensor having a further monitored zone and the monitored zone at least partly overlaps the further monitored zone (D1 0046]). 8. The device in accordance with claim 1, wherein the FMCW LiDAR sensor is movable. (D1 teaches mounting sensors on moving elements (robot arms) [0031, 0034]) 9. The device in accordance with claim 8, wherein the FMCW LiDAR sensor is fastened to a robot arm. (D1 teaches mounting sensors on moving elements (robot arms) [0031, 0034]) 10. The device in accordance with claim 9, wherein the FMCW LiDAR sensor is fastened to a driverless transport vehicle. (D1 teaches the sensor is mounted on a moving machine [see Abstract] which can be read on driverless transport vehicle). Alternatively, D2 is teaches mounting the sensors on vehicles ([0027, 0031, Fig 1A). It would have been obvious to mount the sensor on a driverless transport vehicles to provides robust velocity and spatial information, improving the reliability of object detection and segmentation, enabling real-time perception of the vehicle’s surroundings, which is essential for safe navigation and collision avoidance. Regarding claims 11-15, see rejections of claims 1-10 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAM ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-6970. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 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 571-273-8300. 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. /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/223,661 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/223,661 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/223,661 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/223,661 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/223,661 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578437
DISTANCE MEASURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12541011
FAST Q SWITCHED LASER WITH ADAPTIVE BRAGG GRATING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12517219
Adaptive Ray-Launcher for an Electromagnetic Response Simulator
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12498452
RADAR SYSTEM WITH ENHANCED PROCESSING FOR INCREASED CONTRAST RATIO, IMPROVED ANGULAR SEPARABILITY AND ACCURACY, AND ELIMINATION OF GHOST TARGETS IN A SINGLE-SNAPSHOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12493119
DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 200 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month