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 Amendment
Claims 13-22 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 29 June 2026 overcomes the prior rejection(s). However, the amendment introduces a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, “and and/or” should perhaps read --and (b)--.
Further regarding claim 14, “using the at least one” should perhaps read --using at least one--.
Regarding claim 19, “the calibration marker” should read --the first calibration marker--.
Claims 16 and 20 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “determining a second actual distance of a second calibration marker captured in the first recording the at least one pre-determined dimension.” First, it is unclear how “the at least one pre-determined dimension” relates to the second actual distance, the second calibration marker, or the first recording. Second, it is unclear whether “the at least one pre-determined dimension” is directed to the “pre-determined dimension of the first calibration marker" of parent claim 13 or to a pre-determined dimension associated with the second calibration marker as described in Spec. ¶¶ 71-72.
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.
Claims 13, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer (US 20150160340 A1) in view of Dossaji (US 20100157135 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Grauer discloses a method for calibrating a lighting device and an optical sensor of a gated camera (Fig. 2, gated light source 10, gated camera sensor 72 of gated camera 40, operating the steps of ¶ 38), comprising:
capturing a series of recordings of a visible distance region within a gated control imaging period of the gated camera (Fig. 3, Slice 140; ¶ 25, gating includes repeated light source pulse and sensor exposure events where a “Slice” provides “a specific accumulated imagery of the viewed scene”; ¶ 38, using camera frame N to obtain a next accumulated Slice image);
determining a first actual distance of a first calibration marker captured in a first recording (¶ 38, target detected in camera frame N, where “the target size” provides for “a ‘first order’ distance”) […]; and
adjusting at least one of: (a) a coordinated control of the lighting device and the optical sensor (¶ 27, gated imaging control 30 “provides the gating synchronization” between camera exposures and light source pulses), and (b) the visible distance region, based on a far border of the visible distance region (Fig. 3, Rmax defines the far boundary of Slice 140; ¶ 24, Rmax incorporated into the synchronized source and sensor timing) and the first actual distance (¶ 38, target distance used “for the ‘Slice’ timing” and adjustment of “synchronization timing parameters” including “reducing Rmax”).
Although Grauer discloses determining a target distance based on target size, Grauer does not disclose the specifics of using a pre-determined dimension of the target. Specifically, Grauer does not disclose: [determining a first actual distance of a first calibration marker captured in a first recording] “using at least one pre-determined dimension of the first calibration marker recognized from the first recording.” However, Dossaji teaches the limitation. Specifically, ¶¶ 38-40 teaches “an image is captured using a sensor” and a “recognizable object” is selected from the captured image, wherein the object has “one or more known dimensions” stored in device memory used to calculate the object distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Grauer with the teachings of Dossaji with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine distance more accurately using a known physical dimension of a recognized object, thereby yielding a method with more precise timing adjustments and improved measurement quality (Dossaji, ¶¶ 5, 35, 38, 42).
Regarding claim 19, Grauer in view of Dossaji teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches: wherein the calibration marker has at least one of: an identification feature, an optical feature for determining at least one optical parameter, and a lighting feature for determining a lighting intensity (Grauer, ¶¶ 33, 38, extracts a target using predefined features; Fig. 4, Candidate Detection processing block 204).
Regarding claim 22, Grauer discloses a calibration device (Fig. 1, gated imaging system 60, as further detailed in Fig. 2), comprising:
a lighting device (Fig. 2, gated light source 10);
an optical sensor (Fig. 2, gated camera sensor 72); and
a control device (Fig. 2, gated imaging control 30 & image and signal processing 75) configured to perform a method for calibrating (¶ 38) the lighting device (Fig. 2, gated light source 10) and the optical sensor of a gated camera (Fig. 2, gated camera sensor 72 of gated camera 40), comprising:
capturing a series of recordings of a visible distance region within a gated control imaging period of the gated camera (Fig. 3, Slice 140; ¶ 25, gating includes repeated light source pulse and sensor exposure events where a “Slice” provides “a specific accumulated imagery of the viewed scene”; ¶ 38, using camera frame N to obtain a next accumulated Slice image);
determining a first actual distance of a first calibration marker captured in a first recording (¶ 38, target detected in camera frame N, where “the target size” provides for “a ‘first order’ distance”) […]; and
adjusting at least one of: (a) a coordinated control of the lighting device and the optical sensor (¶ 27, gated imaging control 30 “provides the gating synchronization” between camera exposures and light source pulses), and (b) the visible distance region, based on a far border of the visible distance region (Fig. 3, Rmax defines the far boundary of Slice 140; ¶ 24, Rmax incorporated into the synchronized source and sensor timing) and the first actual distance (¶ 38, target distance used “for the ‘Slice’ timing” and adjustment of “synchronization timing parameters” including “reducing Rmax”).
Although Grauer discloses determining a target distance based on target size, Grauer does not disclose the specifics of using a pre-determined dimension of the target. Specifically, Grauer does not disclose: [determining a first actual distance of a first calibration marker captured in a first recording] “using at least one pre-determined dimension of the first calibration marker recognized from the first recording.” However, Dossaji teaches the limitation. Specifically, ¶¶ 38-40 teaches “an image is captured using a sensor” and a “recognizable object” is selected from the captured image, wherein the object has “one or more known dimensions” stored in device memory used to calculate the object distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Grauer with the teachings of Dossaji with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine distance more accurately using a known physical dimension of a recognized object, thereby yielding a device with more precise timing adjustments and improved measurement quality (Dossaji, ¶¶ 5, 35, 38, 42).
Claim 21 corresponds to the control device described as part of the calibration device of claim 22 and recites the same limitations. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 22.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Dossaji further in view of Calder (US 20200217965 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Grauer in view of Dossaji teaches the method of claim 13, however, does not teach: measuring an actual number of photons arriving at the optical sensor, and adjusting a lighting intensity of the lighting device based on a difference between the actual number and a target number. However, Calder teaches a range-gated camera (¶ 62) implementing a “photon counter circuit that is configured to increment the count signal Vcount responsive to each photon detected by the detector” (¶ 68) and monitored relative to “a preset number of photons” where a readout flag is triggered when the preset threshold is extended (¶ 53) where “a power level of the emitter signal may be reduced in response” (¶ 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Grauer in view of Dossaji with the teachings of Calder with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid detector saturation and ensure accurate and reliable measurements of closer and brighter targets (Calder, ¶¶ 47, 53, 110, 124).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Dossaji further in view of Johnson (US 8368876 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Grauer in view of Dossaji teaches the method of claim 13, however, does not teach: wherein the lighting device has a first lighting device and a second lighting device that are alternately used to light an observation region. Johnson teaches the limitation in Fig. 5, Col. 12:50-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Grauer in view of Dossaji with the teachings of Johnson, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). An artisan skilled in optical systems would have recognized that adopting an alternating dual light source arrangement as taught by Johnson would increase the effective imaging cadence and provide for enhanced target contrast, thereby yielding improved the optical characterization and calibration performance of the method. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16 and 20 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. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Regarding claim 14, Grauer in view of Dossaji fails to teach or suggest deriving the distance for a second reference object in a second recording based on a predetermined dimension of the second reference object and adjusting the coordinated lighting and sensor control or the gated visible distance region using that distance and near border of the visible distance region. Calder and Johnson fail to remedy the deficiencies of Grauer in view of Dossaji.
Regarding claim 15, Grauer in view of Dossaji fails to teach or suggest determining two reference object distances from predetermined dimensions in the same recording frame and adjusting the coordinated lighting and sensor control or the gated visible distance region using both distances and near and far boarders of the visible distance region. Calder and Johnson fail to remedy the deficiencies of Grauer in view of Dossaji.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sonn (US 20190056498 A1) discloses calibrating a gated imaging system with coordinated pulsed illumination and sensor gating, depth estimation, and adaptive adjustment of near and far field boundaries, while Kim (US 20170132477 A1) derives a camera to object distance from images using a recognized object of known dimensions and a calibrated reference image. However, neither Sonn nor Kim teaches adjusting the coordinated lighting and sensor control or the gated visible distance region based on a second target distance of a second reference object from a second recording and a near border of the gated visible distance region, as covered in claim 14, nor determining distances of two reference objects in the same recording and adjusting the coordinated lighting and sensor control or the gated visible distance region based on both distances and both borders of the gated visible distance region, as covered in claim 15.
In sum, the prior art of record lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claim 14 and 15, thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 and 20 are allowed for the same reason as claim 14 by virtue of dependency. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights