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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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) 11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4843565 (“Rose”).
Regarding claim 11, Rose discloses a method for operating a first illumination device, a second illumination device, and an optical sensor, comprising the steps of:
carry out a gated-imaging coordinated control of the first illumination device, the second illumination device, and the optical sensor so as to image a visible distance range within an observation region of the optical sensor (e.g. see a ranging system in which the two controlled light sources are fast pulse strobe lights and the camera is “gated” using an electronic shutter or a similar device could take advantage of the light storage feature by synchronizing the strobes to fire during the vertical retrace period of the scanning beam… by shuttering the camera except when the strobes are firing, a minimum amount of ambient light is allowed into the camera. For example, if the strobes are fired for a period of one microsecond and the camera is controlled such that the shutter is to be open for only that period, the amount of ambient light entering into a standard camera (with a scanning speed approximately equal to 60 times a second) can be reduced …, col. 4, ll. 31-55 and see different arrangement of the apparatus in Figs. 1, 4-5);
during illumination by the first illumination device, capturing a first image of the visible distance range with the optical sensor via the coordinated control (e.g. see second frame is taken with anterior light on and the posterior light off, col. 3, l. 42 – col. 4, l. 23, col. 4, l. 56 – col. 5, l. 28, and see P2 representing pixel intensity, col. 3, l. 55 – col. 4, l. 19);
during illumination by the second illumination device capturing a second image of the visible distance range with the optical sensor via the coordinated control (e.g. see third frame is taken with the posterior light on and the anterior light off, col. 3, l. 42 – col. 4, l. 23, col. 4, l. 56 – col. 5, l. 28, and see P3 representing pixel intensity, col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 19);
during an absence of illumination by the first illumination device and the second illumination device via the coordinated control, capturing a third image with the optical sensor (e.g. see first frame is taken with both the first and second controllable light sources off, using only ambient light, col. 3, l. 42 – col. 4, l. 23, col. 4, l. 56 – col. 5, l. 28, and see P1 representing pixel intensity, col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 19); and
forming a difference captured image from the first captured image, the second captured image, and the third captured image (e.g. see if there is ambient light illuminating the object, its value must be subtracted from the intensity measurements prior to calculating the ratio (which is a unique function of range), Abstract, and see range R calculation involving the subtraction of P1 from P2 and P3, col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 19).
Regarding claim 15, Rose further discloses further comprising the step of carrying out a distance measurement in the difference captured image (e.g. see range R calculation involving the subtraction of P1 from P2 and P3, col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 19).
Regarding claim 16, Rose further discloses a control device configured to perform the method of claim 11 (e.g. see microprocessor, e.g. 5 in the Figures).
Regarding claim 17, Rose further discloses a gated camera apparatus, comprising: a first illumination device; a second illumination device; an optical sensor; and a control device configured to perform the method of claim 11 (e.g. see different arrangement of the apparatus in Figs. 1, 4-5 that include first light source 1, second light source 2, illumination intensity measuring means 3 and microprocessor 5).
Regarding claim 18, Rose further discloses wherein the first illumination device and the second illumination device are disposed horizontally offset from each other (e.g. see the first light source 1 and the second light source 2 separated by a distance X as shown in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of US 2006/0091297 A1 (“Anderson”).
Regarding claim 13, although Rose discloses the first captured image, the second captured image, and the third captured image and forming the difference captured image (e.g. see if there is ambient light illuminating the object, its value must be subtracted from the intensity measurements prior to calculating the ratio (which is a unique function of range), Abstract, and see range R calculation involving the subtraction of P1 from P2 and P3, col. 3, l. 50 – col. 4, l. 19), it is noted Rose differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose further comprising the step of applying a method for image registration to the first captured image, the second captured image, and the third captured image before forming the difference captured image. Anderson however, teaches further comprising the step of applying a method for image registration to the first captured image, the second captured image, and the third captured image before forming the difference captured image (e.g. see first image data and second image data are registered, paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Rose and Anderson before him/her, to include the teachings of Anderson into the range determination method and apparatus of Rose in order to facilitate rapid and reliable detection of an object and/or estimation of a distance between the system and the object.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of US 2018/0203122 A1 (“Grauer”).
Regarding claim 14, although Rose discloses the difference captured image, it is noted Rose differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose further comprising the step of searching for objects in the difference captured image. Grauer however, teaches further comprising the step of searching for objects in the difference captured image (e.g. see analyze the scene by searching for or verifying specific objects, paragraphs [0034], [0047], [0053]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Rose and Anderson before him/her, to include the teachings of Grauer into the range determination method and apparatus of Rose in order to better characterize and improve coverage at specified range.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of US 2023/0298358 A1 (“Levi”).
Regarding claim 19, although Rose discloses wherein the first illumination device and the second illumination device are disposed horizontally offset from each other, it is noted Rose differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose are disposed vertically offset from each other. Levi however, teaches disposed vertically offset from each other. (e.g. see first illuminator 1110A vertically offset from second illuminator 1110B in Figs. 2A-2B).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Rose and Levi before him/her, to include the teachings of Levi into the range determination method and apparatus of Rose in order to improve the accuracy of object detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11, 13-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6975246 B1, Collision Avoidance Using Limited Range Gated Video
US 20230017893 A1, IMAGING SYSTEM
US 20150168954 A1, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OBSTACLE DETECTION USING STRUCTURED LIGHT
US 20130070095 A1, FAST OBSTACLE DETECTION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights