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 .
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 07/06/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
The objection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks pages 7-10, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Stigwall merely indexes compensation according to temperature and image-coordinate values and therefore does not teach a temperature adjustment variable that is specified individually for the claimed distance variable and a prevailing temperature.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stigwall does not disclose the cited coordinates independently of measured distance information. Stigwall teaches that a reference distance between the triangulation sensor and the calibration artefact can be used for generation of calibration data, and that measured positions, particularly Y-coordinates, are related to the reference distance such that particular deviations from the reference distance are derived for the respective coordinates (Stigwall [0098]).
Stigwall further teaches that the calibration data comprises a lookup table or matrix providing a set of compensation distance values, wherein a particular compensation distance value is identifiable based on a selected temperature and correspondingly assigned coordinates. Stigwall further teaches interpolation between such values to provide a continuous compensation function representing distance drift ([0101]-[0102]).
Thus, the coordinates relied upon by Stigwall correspond to respective measured positions/distances for which Stigwall provides a corresponding temperature dependent compensation distance value. The claim does not require that the numerical distance value itself be used as the lookup table index.
Applicant argues that the claimed adjustment variable must be individually specified “for the distance variable itself”.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Stigwall associates its calibration information with individual measured distances/positions.
In particular, Stigwall teaches that the distance between the calibration target and the triangulation sensor is defined and known ([0150]) and further teaches that the calibration data provides a position corresponding to a given distance measured by the sensor ([0152]). Stigwall additionally teaches performing the calibration method at different Y-positions and generating respective calibration data for each position ([0154]).
Accordingly, Stigwall teaches individual calibration/compensation data corresponding to respective measured positions/distances. When read together with [0101], which selects a particular compensation distance value according to the corresponding position and temperature, Stigwall teaches or at least suggests the claimed temperature adjustment variable specified individually for the distance variable and prevailing temperature.
Applicant’s discussion of its specification is acknowledged. However, patentability is determined based on the limitations actually recited in the claims, not on unrecited distinctions appearing only in the specification.
Claim 1 requires that a temperature adjustment variable be applied to a distance variable and that the temperature adjustment variable be specified individually for the distance variable and prevailing temperature. The claim does not require a particular data structure, does not require that the distance value itself serve as the lookup table index, and does not exclude determining the appropriate compensation value based on coordinates corresponding to the measured distance.
As discussed above, Stigwall teaches respective compensation distance values associated with measured positions/distances and temperature. Therefore, Applicant’s discussion of a preferred embodiment in the specification does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the combined teachings of Damhofer and Stigwall.
Applicant’s argument regarding lack of motivation to combine is not persuasive.
Damhofer itself recognizes temperature as a source of error in the distance determination and teaches performing an adjustment after the distance variable has been measured or determined, including compensation based on temperature measured at the illumination or light sources (Damhofer [0025]- [0026], as relied upon in the Office Action). Thus, Damhofer already provides the reason for applying temperature based correction to its measured distance variables.
Stigwall addresses the same known problem of temperature induced measurement error. Stigwall explains that thermal effects, such as heating of a light source or changing ambient conditions, can cause measured position values to contain errors, which ultimately result in erroneous position measurements ([0016]). Stigwall further explains that thermal tilting or offset of the laser plane can cause significant erroneous measurements, including errors in calculated distances ([0017]).
Stigwall then provides the known solution to that problem. Paragraph [0094] teaches a calibration function providing compensation data for a distance as a function of temperature and states that the function may provide a continuous representation of distance error in dependency of temperature, including implementation as a lookup table. Paragraph [0101] further teaches a lookup table or matrix containing a set of compensation distance values, wherein a particular compensation distance value is selected based on a defined temperature and corresponding coordinates, with interpolation between stored values to provide a continuous compensation function.
Stigwall, [0163]- [0167], states that calibration over temperature is performed “to extend the range of temperatures where a measurement remains accurate,” and explains that the sensor can remain accurate over a larger temperature range through thermal calibration.
Stigwall, [0163]- [0167], states that calibration over temperature is performed “to extend the range of temperatures where a measurement remains accurate,” and explains that the sensor can remain accurate over a larger temperature range through thermal calibration.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to employ Stigwall’s known temperature dependent lookup/interpolation compensation technique in Damhofer’s temperature corrected distance measurement system in order to compensate for distance error caused by temperature variation and thereby improve measurement accuracy and reliability.
The rationale is based on the teachings of the references regarding thermal measurement error and compensation, rather than on Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the dependent claims are not persuasive because they are based solely on the alleged deficiency of independent claim 1.
As discussed above, the Examiner maintains that Damhofer in view of Stigwall teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, the arguments do not overcome the rejections of the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims remain addressed by the references and reasoning set forth in the rejection of each respective claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernd Damhofer (DE 102013205605 A1, “Damhofer”) in view of Stigwall et al. (US 20180372481 A1, “Stigwall”).
Regarding claim 1, Damhofer teaches a method for operating a detection apparatus for determining distance variables which characterize distances from objects detected by the detection apparatus, thein which method comprising:
generating at least one scanning signal from at least one amplitude-modulated electrical transmission signal and is transmitted into at least one monitoring region of the detection apparatus (Damhofer teaches a TOF system having a transmitting unit/illumination module with a light source and beam-shaping optics, where the light source is driven by a modulation signal and emits an amplitude-modulated signal toward the object (FIG. 1, S(p1); [0017]–[0018]).),
at least one amplitude-modulated electrical reception signal is ascertained from at least one echo signal of at least one scanning signal reflected in the at least one monitoring region (Damhofer teaches that the emitted signal is reflected by the object and reaches the TOF photosensor as a phase-shifted received signal, and the received light is processed in the sensor (FIG. 1, S(p2); [0018].),
at least one distance variable is ascertained from at least one electrical transmission signal (36) and at least one electrical reception signal (44) (Damhofer teaches that the propagation time / distance is determined on the basis of the phase shift of emitted and received light, with the modulator jointly acting on the light source and photosensor ([0018]).),
wherein, when ascertaining the at least one distance variable, at least one adjustment is carried out (Damhofer teaches that measured or determined distance values are compensated based on the temperature measured at the illumination or directly at the light sources ([0025]- [0026]).),
Damhofer fails to explicitly teach wherein a temperature adjustment is carried out in which at least one temperature adjustment variable is applied to at least one distance variable (DFkor), which temperature adjustment variable is specified individually for the at least one distance variable and a prevailing temperature.
However, Stigwall teaches applying a temperature-dependent compensation value to measured position/distance data. In particular, Stigwall teaches deriving calibration data over a set of calibration temperatures by capturing measurements at those temperatures and deriving compensation data therefrom. Stigwall further teaches that the calibration data may comprise a look-up table or matrix providing a set of compensation distance values, wherein a particular compensation distance value is identifiable based on a selection of a defined temperature and correspondingly assigned coordinates, and that values between grid nodes may be interpolated to provide a continuous compensation function [0094], [101]-[102]. Thus, Stigwall teaches a temperature adjustment variable that is selected individually for a particular measured distance-related value/coordinate and the prevailing temperature and then applied as compensation to improve measurement accuracy.
It would have been obvious to modify Damhofer’s temperature-based compensation of TOF distance measurements with Stigwall’s lookup-table/interpolation-based temperature compensation, because Stigwall teaches that using temperature-indexed compensation values, including interpolated values between stored calibration points, improves measurement accuracy under thermal drift (Stigwall, [0022]). Doing so would have predictably improved the accuracy and reliability of Damhofer’s temperature-corrected TOF distance measurements.
Regarding claim 4, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein adjustment variables (Tempkor) from at least one adjustment table are used for the temperature adjustment and/or for the signal shape adjustment.
Damhofer teaches temperature-based compensation of measured distance values in a TOF phase-measurement system (Damhofer [0025]- [0026]). Stigwall teaches a lookup table or matrix of compensation distance values selected based on temperature and assigned coordinates, with interpolation between grid nodes (Stigwall [0101]- [0102]), thereby teaching adjustment variables from an adjustment table for temperature adjustment.
Regarding claim 7, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, if no individual temperature adjustment variable is present for a distance variable for the prevailing temperature, an appropriate temperature adjustment variable is ascertained by interpolation from present temperature adjustment variables.
Regarding claim 8, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one electromagnetic scanning signal is generated from at least one electrical transmission signal (Damhofer’s modulator drives the light source with a modulation signal, and the light source emits an amplitude-modulated signal / electromagnetic radiation toward the object (FIG. 1; [0017]–[0018].).
Claim 9 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, teaches the detection apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein the detection apparatus has at least one temperature adjustment means by which a temperature adjustment is carried out (Damhofer teaches an evaluation unit connected to temperature sensors, with temperature measured in the vicinity of the light source (FIG. 2, evaluation unit 100, temperature sensors 60, 61; [0005], [0010], [0019]). Damhofer also teaches compensating measured distance values based on that measured temperature ([0026]) and further teaches comparing the temperature sensors and triggering fault reactions [0033]-[0034]).
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damhofer in view of Stigwall and Huber et al. (US 20140160459 A1, “Huber”).
Regarding claim 2, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, fails to explicitly teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one distance variable is ascertained on the assumption that the at least one amplitude-modulated transmission signal and the at least one amplitude-modulated reception signal each have basic envelope curve shapes, and at least one signal shape adjustment is carried out in which deviations of real envelope curve shapes of the transmission signals and of the reception signals from the basic envelope curve shapes are adjusted.
Damhofer teaches a TOF system in which distance information is determined from the phase difference of emitted and received signals and further teaches compensating distance values in view of temperature-related phase drift (Damhofer [0018], [0025]-[0026]).
While, Huber teaches that the waveform of the modulation signal and/or correlation signals may take various forms, including triangular, sawtooth, trapezoidal, rectangular, or sinusoidal, and further teaches that, in the case of a non-rectangular profile of the modulation and/or correlation signals, the calculation apparatus may be supplemented by a correction function or a correction table ([0009]). Huber also teaches that the calculation of distance/phase is based on the assumed signal shape used in the linear dependence of the calculation ([0030]) and that even sinusoidal correlation signals may be treated, for purposes of the calculation, as rectangular signals ([0090]). Thus, Huber teaches/suggests calculating the distance on the basis of basic assumed signal shapes and applying a correction to account for deviations of the actual signal shapes therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Huber’s waveform-shape correction into Damhofer’s TOF system in order to improve the accuracy of the phase-based distance determination when the actual transmitted/received signal shapes differ from the idealized shapes assumed in the distance calculation.
Regarding claim 3, Damhofer in view of Stigwall and Huber, teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein sinusoidal curve shapes are used as basic envelope curve shapes for at least one transmission signal and at least one reception signal and/or triangular curve shapes, sawtooth curve shapes or the like are used as real envelope curve shapes (Huber teaches that the modulation signal can be a sinusoidal signal and further teaches that the waveform of the modulation signal and/or the correlation signals can be embodied as a triangular form, a sawtooth form, a trapezoidal form, or a rectangular form ([0009]). Huber further teaches that sinusoidal correlation signals may be used and, for purposes of the calculation, may be considered as rectangular signals without changing the validity of the linear dependence ([0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific waveform options taught by Huber in the TOF system of Damhofer because Huber teaches that such waveform selections and associated correction improve the practical implementation and accuracy of TOF distance calculations and a design choice.).
Regarding claim 5, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, fails to explicitly teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one reception signal is detected at a plurality of temporally defined recording time ranges, and a distance variable is ascertained from reception variables assigned to the respective recording time ranges.
Damhofer teaches a TOF system in which distance is determined from the phase difference of emitted and received signals ([0018]). Huber teaches generating a modulation signal and four correlation signals having the same period as the modulation signal, correlating the received radiation with the four correlation signals to form four corresponding correlation values, and determining distance from difference correlation values formed from those correlation values ( [0005], [0046], [0062]-[0064]). Huber further teaches that the correlation signals are phase shifted relative to one another, including by quarter-period increments, and that the measurement may be carried out in first and second measurement phases using different phase relationships of the correlation signals ([0022]- [0026], [0050]- [0052], [0108]- [0114]). Thus, Huber teaches/suggests detecting the reception signal at a plurality of temporally defined recording time ranges and ascertaining a distance variable from reception variables assigned to those respective time ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Huber’s phase-defined correlation intervals in Damhofer’s phase-based TOF system in order to improve timing definition and distance-calculation accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Damhofer in view of Stigwall and Huber, teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least some of the defined recording time ranges are placed at characteristic points of the transmission envelope curve of the at least one transmission signal.
Huber teaches generating a modulation signal and four correlation signals having the same period as the modulation signal, wherein one correlation signal has the same phase as the modulation signal and the remaining correlation signals are phase shifted by quarter-period increments relative thereto ([0005], [0022]- [0023], [0050]). Huber further teaches using correlation values associated with phase positions corresponding to 0, 1/4 period, 1/2 period, and 3/4 period relative to the modulation signal, including operation in distinct measurement phases using those defined phase positions ([0024]- [0026], [0051]- [0052], [0057]- [0062], [0108]- [0114]). Because these recording/correlation intervals are fixed relative to the transmission waveform, Huber teaches/suggests placing at least some of the recording time ranges at characteristic points of the transmission envelope curve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Huber’s phase-defined timing points in Damhofer’s phase-based TOF system in order to provide precise, repeatable timing intervals for reception-signal evaluation and thereby improve the accuracy of the distance determination.
Regarding claim 11, Damhofer in view of Stigwall, fails to explicitly teach the detection apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein the detection apparatus has at least one signal shape adjustment means by which at least one signal shape adjustment is carried out.
Damhofer teaches a TOF distance-measurement apparatus including a transmitting unit / illumination module, a receiving unit / TOF camera, and an evaluation unit for determining distance from emitted and received signals ([0017]- [0019]).
While Huber teaches a TOF distance sensor having a calculation apparatus for determining the distance from received signals and further teaches that the waveform of the modulation signal and/or correlation signals may take different forms, including triangular, sawtooth, trapezoidal, rectangular, or sinusoidal. Huber additionally teaches that, in the case of a non-rectangular waveform profile, the calculation apparatus can be supplemented by a correction function or a correction table ([0005], [0009], [0090]. See also, the rejection of claim 2). Thus, Huber teaches/suggests a signal-shape-adjustment function implemented in the calculation apparatus of the detection apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Huber’s waveform-shape correction function into Damhofer’s TOF detection apparatus in order to improve the accuracy of the distance determination when actual signal shapes deviate from idealized shapes used in the calculation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damhofer in view of Stigwall and Subasingha et al. (US 20190293768 A1, “Subasingha”).
Claim 12, is a vehicle having at least one detection apparatus for determining distance variables which characterize distances from objects detected by the detection apparatus relative to the vehicle and also, the detection apparatus has means for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1. Damhofer in view of Stigwall, teaches the detection apparatus has means for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1. However, Damhofer in view of Stigwall to explicitly teach a vehicle having at least one detection apparatus for determining distance variables which characterize distances from objects detected by the detection apparatus relative to the vehicle.
Subasingha teaches an example vehicle system, such as an autonomous vehicle, including one or more LiDAR sensors, a perception engine that uses LiDAR distance information / point clouds, and a planner that uses that information to generate a trajectory for controlling motion of the vehicle ([0023], [0102]-[0113]; FIG. 8). Therefore, Subasingha teaches/suggests providing the Damhofer/Stigwall distance-detection and compensation apparatus in a vehicle environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the known TOF / LiDAR distance-sensing and compensation features of Damhofer and Stigwall into the vehicle system of Subasingha in order to enable the vehicle to obtain more accurate object-distance information for perception and vehicle control and improve driving safety.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 -5:30.
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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights