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 .
Examiner’s Note
This replacement non-final Office action supersedes the non-final Office action mailed June 3, 2026 for the purposes of reply. This action adds a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/624,573 and revises the indication of allowable subject matter accordingly. All prior objections and grounds of rejection are maintained and restated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “coupled at least the laser light” should read
--coupled to at least the laser light--.
Regarding claim 7, “the array of emitter elements are configured” should read
--the array of emitter elements is configured--.
Further regarding claim 7, “the array of sensor elements are configured” should read --the array of sensor elements is configured--.
Regarding claim 9, “precedes and it is temporally adjacent” should read
--precedes and is temporally adjacent--.
Regarding claim 10, “precedes and it is temporally adjacent” should read
--precedes and is temporally adjacent--.
Regarding claim 13, “where laser scanning method comprises” should read
--wherein the laser scanning method comprises--.
Regarding claim 16, “method of claim 13 further” should read
--method of claim 13, further--.
Regarding claim 18, “method of claim 13 the laser” should read
--method of claim 13, wherein the laser--.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 13-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-16 of copending Application No. 18/624,573 (reference application). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Reference claims 1 and 12 recite the same laser pulse scanning, time-of-flight distance measurement, interpolation, comparison, and radial velocity determination recited in instant claims 1 and 13. The additional optical assembly and scan axis limitations of the reference claims merely narrow the reference invention and do not distinguish them from the broader instant claims. The relevant difference is that the instant claims identify the two acquisitions as measurement subframes, whereas the reference claims identify them as respective sweeps along a slow-scan axis.
The instant application describes a measurement frame as comprising temporally adjacent subframes, each providing a portion of the frame’s measurement data. See ¶¶ 14, 22, and 24.
The reference application similarly uses two temporally adjacent sweeps to acquire separate, complementary measurement sets that are processed together to provide increased scan field coverage and radial velocity estimates. See ¶¶ 20-22, 39-40, and 61-69.
Given this corresponding acquisition structure, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to treat each sweep pair as a measurement frame and each constituent sweep as a corresponding measurement subframe. Doing so predictably organizes the complementary sweep data into a common acquisition cycle without altering the underlying scanning, interpolation, comparison, or radial velocity determination.
Reference claims 2-10 and 13-16 expressly recite the same additional limitations as instant claims 2-10 and 14-17, respectively, including reciprocal interpolation and comparison, surface normal velocity determination, projection onto a surface normal vector, emitter and sensor arrays, focal plane array arrangements, TOF circuitry, and temporal ordering. Accordingly, instant claims 2-10 and 14-17 are not patentably distinct for the same reason.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites that the controller is adapted to “determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The phrase “corresponding measurement points” is indefinite because the claim does not specify which of the previously recited measurement points are the “corresponding measurement points.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the points correspond to: (1) the “first measurement points”; (2) the “second measurement points"; (3) both the first measurement points and second measurement points; (4) all “measurement points in the scan field”; or (5) only a subset of measurement points for which a distance estimate and a distance measurement are compared. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 1 is understood to read --to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 55, 63-66, 68-74.
Claim 2 recites that the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, also recites the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The scope of claim 2 is unclear because claim 2 again recites determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points,” but does not specify whether the radial velocity estimates determined in claim 2 are the same radial velocity estimates recited in claim 1, or whether claim 2 determines additional radial velocity estimates. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “corresponding measurement points” of claim 2 are the same corresponding measurement points recited in claim 1, or a different set of measurement points. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 2 is understood to read --to determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 77-84.
Claim 3 recites that the controller is adapted “to determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” of claim 3 is understood to read --to determine radial velocity estimates for the corresponding ones of the second measurement points--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 55, 63-66, and 68-74.
Claim 3 further recites that the controller is adapted “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 3 is understood to read --to determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the first measurement points--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 77-84.
Claim 3 further recites that the controller is adapted to compare distance estimates in the first plurality of distance estimates to distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates “by being adapted to” interpolate second distance measurements and compare second distance estimates to first distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates. The limitation is unclear because the phrase “by being adapted to” requires the subsequently recited interpolation of second distance measurements and comparison of second distance estimates to first distance measurements as the manner by which the controller performs the earlier-recited comparison of first distance estimates to second distance measurements. However, the subsequently recited operations instead define a reciprocal comparison (i.e., comparison of second distance estimates to first distance measurements) that is orthogonal to the comparison of first distance estimates to second distance measurements. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 3 requires the reciprocal comparison to be the manner of performing the first comparison, or instead requires an additional controller operation. The specification does not support the first comparison “by being adapted to” the second comparison. For the purposes of examination, “measurement points by being adapted to” of claim 3 is understood to read --measurement points, and is further adapted to--, in accordance with Spec. ¶ 25.
Claim 13 recites “measurement points in a first measurement subframe,” “measurement points in a second measurement subframe,” and “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The scope of the claim is unclear because the claim does not identify which measurement points are the “corresponding measurement points.” It is unclear whether the radial velocity estimates are determined for the measurement points scanned in the first measurement subframe, the measurement points scanned in the second measurement subframe, a combination of the measurement points scanned in both subframes, all measurement points in the measurement frame, or only a subset of points for which a first distance estimate and second distance measurement are compared. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 13 is understood to read --to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the measurement points in the second measurement subframe--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 55, 63-66, 68-74.
Claim 14 recites “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” Claim 13, from which claim 14 depends, also recites “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points.” The scope of claim 14 is unclear because claim 14 again recites determining “radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points,” but does not specify whether the radial velocity estimates determined in claim 14 are the same radial velocity estimates recited in claim 13, or whether claim 14 determines additional radial velocity estimates. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “corresponding measurement points” of claim 14 are the same corresponding measurement points recited in claim 13, or a different set of measurement points. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 14 is understood to read --to determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the measurement points in the first measurement subframe--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 77-84.
Claim 15 recites “to determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13. For the purposes of examination, “to determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding measurement points” of claim 15 is understood to read --to determine the radial velocity estimates for the corresponding ones of the measurement points in the second measurement subframe--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 55, 63-66, and 68-74.
Claim 15 further recites “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 14. For the purposes of examination, “to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points” of claim 15 is understood to read --to determine additional radial velocity estimates for corresponding ones of the measurement points in the first measurement subframe--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 77-84.
Claim 15 further recites comparing distance estimates in the first plurality of distance estimates to distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates “comprises” interpolating second distance measurements and compare second distance estimates to first distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates. The limitation is unclear because the phrase “comprises” requires the subsequently recited interpolation of second distance measurements and comparison of second distance estimates to first distance measurements as included in the earlier-recited comparison of first distance estimates to second distance measurements. However, the subsequently recited operations instead define a reciprocal comparison (i.e., comparison of second distance estimates to first distance measurements) that is orthogonal to the comparison of first distance estimates to second distance measurements. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 15 requires the reciprocal comparison to be comprised in performing the first comparison, or instead requires an additional further operation. The specification does not support the first comparison comprising of the second comparison. For the purposes of examination, “comprises” of claim 15 is understood to read --is performed and the method further comprises--, in accordance with Spec. ¶¶ 77-84.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are further rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1, 6, 8-9, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici (US 20220342047 A1) in view of Yepes (“Estimation of Looming from LiDAR,” published Feb 2022)1.
Regarding claim 1, Moscovici discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1A, LIDAR system 100 as further detailed in Fig. 2A; ¶ 48) comprising:
a laser light source configured to produce laser light pulses (Fig. 2A, projecting unit 102; ¶¶ 56, 59);
a detector to detect reflections of the laser light pulses from measurement points in a scan field (Fig. 2A, reflected light 206 from object 208 in FOV 120 detected by sensor 116; ¶ 56; as further detailed in Fig. 4A, detector array 400 detect photons reflected from FOV 120; ¶¶ 88-89);
at least one controller coupled at least the laser light source and the detector (Fig. 1A, processing unit 108; ¶ 48; as further detailed in Fig. 2A, processing unit 108 coupled to source / detector via bus 212; ¶ 58), the at least one controller adapted to:
scan first measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a first plurality of distance measurements for a first measurement subframe based on times-of-flight of detected reflections (Fig. 10A, first group/odd scan lines L1, L3, … L27; ¶ 141; first 33 ms half-frame capture; ¶ 143; TOF calculations determine distances and generate point-cloud distance values; ¶ 147); [1: …];
scan second measurement points with laser light pulses to generate a second plurality of distance measurements for a second measurement subframe based on times-of-flight of detected reflections (Fig. 10A, second group / even scan lines L2, L4, … L28 interlaced with first group; ¶¶ 141, 146; second, subsequent 33 ms half-frame capture; ¶ 143; TOF point cloud distance values; ¶ 147); and
compare [2: first plurality of distance measurements] to distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine radial velocity estimates for corresponding measurement points (¶ 147, comparing first/second scan line information to determine velocity; ¶ 150, comparing point cloud points P1/P13, P4/P16, P3/P15 to determine relative/longitudinal motion and “relative velocity”).
Moscovici does not disclose:
(1) “interpolate first distance measurements in the first plurality of distance measurements to determine a first plurality of distance estimates”; and,
(2) [compare] “distance estimates in the first plurality of distance estimates” [to second plurality of distance measurements].
However, Yepes teaches (1) in § 3.2.1, using LiDAR point cloud range image grids using “interpolation/decimation and discretization” to obtain range values “closer to the real ones” before calculating the radial velocity (rj+1-rj)/Δt, where sample set j corresponds to the first measurement subframe and rj corresponds to first plurality of distance estimates. 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 at least one controller of Moscovici with the range interpolation teachings of Yepes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain more accurate range values thereby improving the robustness of velocity determination (Yepes, §3.2.1).
The combination of Moscovici in view of Yepes further teaches (2), where Moscovici teaches in ¶¶ 147, 150 comparing information from first and second interlaced scan-line sets to determine radial velocity from TOF point cloud distance values. As modified by Yepes, the first set distance values of Moscovici would be interpolated distance estimates, and therefore the combination of Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the comparison of the first plurality of distance estimates to second plurality of distance measurements.
Regarding claim 6, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the laser light source comprises a transmitting unit with an array of emitter elements (Moscovici, Fig. 2E, projecting unit 102 includes array of light sources 112A-112F; ¶ 72; ¶ 158) and wherein the detector comprises a receiving unit with an array of sensor elements (Moscovici, Fig. 4A, sensing unit 106 includes sensor 116 with detector array 400 and detection elements 402; ¶¶ 88-89).
Regarding claim 8, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: the apparatus further comprises a time-of-flight (TOF) circuitry responsive to the detector to determine distances to the measurement points in the scan field from the detected reflections (Moscovici, Fig. 4A, regional output circuitry 406 and processor 408; ¶ 92, determining TOF for reflected light 206 based on detector outputs).
Regarding claim 9, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first measurement subframe precedes and it is temporally adjacent to the second measurement subframe (Moscovici, Fig. 10A; ¶ 141, first odd-line group L1, L3, … L27 scanned before second even-line group L2, L4, … L28, where second group is not scanned until first group is fully scanned; ¶ 143, first group during first 33 ms window and second group during second, subsequent 33 ms window).
Regarding claim 11, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first measurement subframe comprises alternating rows of measurement points and wherein the second measurement subframe comprises rows of measurement points interleaved with the alternating rows of measurement points (Moscovici, Fig. 10A; ¶ 141, odd indexed lines 1, 3, 5, 7 … 27 first and even indexed lines 2, 4, 6, 8 … 28 second, with the second group “interleaved” with the first; ¶ 146, first series L1, L3, L5 … L27 and second series L2, L4, L6 … L28 interlaced).
Regarding claim 12, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first measurement subframe comprises a first alternating grid pattern of measurement points and wherein the second measurement subframe comprises a second alternating grid pattern of measurement points interleaved with the first alternating grid pattern of measurement points (Moscovici, Fig. 10A; ¶ 141, odd indexed lines 1, 3, 5, 7 … 27 first grid and even indexed lines 2, 4, 6, 8 … 28 second grid, with the second gird “interleaved” with the first; ¶ 146, first series L1, L3, L5 … L27 and second series L2, L4, L6 … L28 interlaced).
Claim 13 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 1.
Claim 19 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 11.
Claim 20 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 12. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 12.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Yepes further in view of Horn (“Rigid Body Motion from Range Image Sequences,” published 1991)2.
Regarding claim 4, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to determine a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates. Horn teaches the limitation in Appendix A.2, where the normal velocity component is defined as Vn = Rt (i ⋅ n), where Rt is the range rate, i is the unit vector, and n is the unit surface normal. 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 at least one controller of Moscovici in view of Yepes with the teachings of Horn with the motivation to determine the normal component of velocity and provide surface orientation awareness and motion information in order to improve range image motion recovery and obstacle detection and avoidance (Horn, p. 1, Abstract & Introduction; p. 7, Implementation).
Regarding claim 5, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to determine a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates by being adapted to: determine a surface-normal vector of a surface at a measurement point; and project the at least one radial velocity estimate onto the surface-normal vector. Horn teaches determination of a surface-normal velocity from at least one of the radial velocity estimates (Appendix A.2, where the normal velocity component is defined as Vn= Rt (i ⋅ n), where Rt is the range rate / velocity, i is the unit vector, and n is the unit surface normal) by being adapted to: determine a surface-normal vector of a surface at a measurement point (Appendix A.7: “Estimating the Surface Normal,” computes a normal from range/depth derivatives for planar or spherical range sampling); and project the at least one radial velocity estimate onto the surface-normal vector (Appendix A.2, Vn = Rt (i ⋅ n), i.e., range rate / velocity Rt along ray direction i projection onto surface normal n). 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 at least one controller of Moscovici in view of Yepes with the teachings of Horn with the motivation to determine the normal component of velocity and provide surface orientation awareness and motion information in order to improve range image motion recovery and obstacle detection and avoidance (Horn, p. 1, Abstract & Introduction; p. 7, Implementation).
Claim 16-17 are methods corresponding to the apparatus of claims 4-5. Accordingly, claims 16-17 are rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claims 4-5.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Yepes further in view of Kiehn (US 20180259624 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 6, however does not teach: wherein the array of emitter elements are configured in a first focal-plane array arrangement and wherein the array of sensor elements are configured in a second focal-plane arrangement. Kiehn teaches: wherein the array of emitter elements are configured in a first focal-plane array arrangement (Fig. 1a, transmission matrix 10 with transmitting elements 12; ¶¶ 67-68; ¶ 30, transmission matrix is a “focal plane array,” i.e., transmitting elements in the focal plane of an optical transmission system; ¶ 53, transmitting elements of the transmission matrix are arranged in the focal plane of the optical transmission system) and wherein the array of sensor elements are configured in a second focal-plane arrangement (Fig. 1b, reception matrix 50 with receiving elements 52; ¶¶ 69-70; ¶ 35, reception matrix has the form of a “focal plane array,” i.e., receiving elements in the focal plane of a receiving optical system; ¶ 53, receiving elements of the reception matrix are arranged in the focal plane of the receiving optical system). 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 array of emitter elements and array of sensor elements of Moscovici in view of Yepes with the teachings of Kiehn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for scanning without any mechanical moving components, thereby yielding a more compact scanner system with enhanced transmitter / receiver optical alignment (Kiehn, ¶¶ 31-32, 36, 54).
Claim 18 is a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Yepes further in view of Danziger (US 20190107607 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Moscovici in view of Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the second measurement subframe precedes and it is temporally adjacent to the first measurement subframe. Danziger teaches the limitation in Fig. 27, sub-scan 200A/odd scan lines; Fig. 28, sub-scan 200B/even scan lines; ¶¶ 154, 161, 166-167: interlaced sub-scans may be scanned sequentially, e.g., scan sub-scan 200A then 200B or vice versa, where scanning in sequence means a succeeding sub-scan begins only after the preceding sub-scan is completed. 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 apparatus of Moscovici in view of Yepes with the teachings of Danziger with a reasonable expectation of success in order provide for higher frame rate object monitoring and tracking, yielding a system with greater sensing granularity of target location / direction / speed (Danziger, ¶¶ 159-161, 171-173).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 would be allowable if: (1) amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); (2) rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (3) the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome by establishing patentable distinctness or by filing a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
With respect to claim 2, neither Moscovici nor Yepes teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one controller is further adapted to: interpolate second distance measurements in the second plurality of distance measurements to determine a second plurality of distance estimates; and compare distance estimates in the second plurality of distance estimates to distance measurements in the first plurality of distance measurements to determine [additional] radial velocity estimates for corresponding [ones of the first] measurement points. Neither Kiehn, Danziger, nor Horn remedies the deficiencies of Moscovici and Yepes.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include:
Zeng (US 20130211657 A1) discloses a ranging system using emitted light pulses, time-of-flight range detection, interpolation of range data, and successive frame motion estimation from registered range images. However, although Zeng teaches employment of interpolation for rescaling a range image to align with an intensity image and estimates motion through comparison of successive registered frames, Zeng does not teach interpolation the second plurality of distance measurements into second distance estimates and comparing those estimates back to the first distance measurements to determine velocity estimates.
Finkelstein (US 20230196501 A1) discloses a lidar time-of-flight optical system using laser pulses, photodetector arrays, collection subframes, and interpolation of signal peak positions to determine ranges from detected reflections. However, although Finkelstein teaches employment of a second subframe to resolve or refine range from histogram peaks, Finkelstein does not teach the interpolating second-subframe distance measurements into second distance estimates and comparing those second estimates against first-subframe distance measurements to determine velocity estimates as recited in claim 2.
Yamamoto (“Direct estimation of range flow on deformable shape from a video rate range camera,” published 1993)3 discloses a video rate laser range camera and algorithms for estimating 3D range flow or motion from successive range images. However, although Yamamoto teaches estimation of range flow from successive range image frames using motion constraint equations, Yamamoto does not teach interpolating second subframe distance measurements into second distance estimates and comparing those second estimates back against first subframe distance measurements to determine velocity estimates as recited in claim 2.
In sum, the prior art made of record teach or suggest various aspects of the invention, but none in a way that would fully anticipate or render obvious all limitations as specifically recited in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 2 would be allowable : (1) amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); (2) rewritten to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (3) the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome by establishing patentable distinctness or by filing a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321. Claim 3 would be allowable for the same reason as claim 2. Claims 14-15 are methods corresponding to apparatus claims 2-3 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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
1 J. D. Yepes and D. Raviv, “Estimation of Looming from LiDAR," arXiv:2202.10972v1 published Feb. 22, 2022.
2 Horn & Harris, “Rigid Body Motion from Range Image Sequences,” CVGIP: Image Understanding, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1-13, January 1991.
3 M. Yamamoto, P. Boulanger, J.-A. Beraldin and M. Rioux, “Direct estimation of range flow on deformable shape from a video rate range camera,” in IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 82-89, Jan. 1993.
Prosecution Insights