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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/14/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fisher et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0072946).
With respect to claim 1, Fisher et al disclose: A control device [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a processor having a memory storing computer program code, wherein the processor having the memory is configured to cause the control device to [ taught by control circuit (105) paragraph [0051] ]: control an optical sensor that detects an echo of irradiation light irradiated to a detection area of a vehicle [ figure 1 shows control circuit (105) controlling detector array (110) ]; acquire distance image data representing a distance value to a reflective target that reflects light in the detection area based on the echo that is detected by optical sensor and is an echo of the irradiation light with a first intensity [ taught by paragraphs [0019] and [0020] ]; acquire intensity image data representing an intensity value of the echo reflected from the reflective target in the detection area based on the echo that is detected by the optical sensor and is an echo of the irradiation light with a second intensity lower than the first intensity [ met by determining p(x, y) in figure 11 ]; estimate a flare pixel region in which flare imaging is predicted in a periphery of a target pixel region in which the reflective target is imaged in the distance image data, based on the intensity image data [ met by determining d(x, y) = p(x, y) – i(x, y) in figure 11 ]; and remove the distance value of the flare pixel region [ paragraph [0075] states, “…In some embodiments, the background offset level may be estimated as being substantially uniform across multiple regions of the FoV, and may be represented by a scattered light intensity map in which the respective scatter intensities are substantially uniform or non-spatially varying. Such subtraction may improve accuracy with respect to a majority of a scene or field of view that is outside the “flare” zone of the retroreflective target…” ], wherein a detection timing of the echo in the flare pixel region overlaps with a detection timing of the echo in the target pixel region in the distance image data [ paragraph [0046] states, “… Flared light may end up being received at pixels of the detector array that are adjacent or nearby the actual pixel targets. Lens flare or ghosting may cause other optical artifacts. Such light that is redirected to pixels other than the pixel(s) to which the light was otherwise directed may be referred to herein as glare, scattering, background light or signals, “light pollution,” or more generally, stray light…”].
Claims 9 and 11 are met by the subject matter of Fisher et al, as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, Fisher et al disclose: A control device [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a processor having a memory storing computer program code, wherein the processor having the memory is configured to cause the control device [ taught by control circuit (105) paragraph [0051] ] to: control an optical sensor that detects an echo of irradiation light irradiated to a detection area of a vehicle [ figure 1 shows control circuit (105) controlling detector array (110) ]; acquire distance image data representing a distance value to a reflective target that reflects light in the detection area based on the echo that is detected by optical sensor and is an echo of the irradiation light [ taught by paragraphs [0019] and [0020] ]; acquire intensity image data representing an intensity value of the echo reflected from the reflective target in the detection area based on the echo that is detected by the optical sensor and is an echo of background light with a lower intensity than the irradiation light [ met by determining p(x, y) in figure 11 ]; estimate a flare pixel region in which flare imaging is predicted in a periphery of a target pixel region in which the reflective target is imaged in the distance image data, based on the intensity image data [ met by determining d(x, y) = p(x, y) – i(x, y) in figure 11 ]; and remove the distance value of the flare pixel region[ paragraph [0075] states, “…In some embodiments, the background offset level may be estimated as being substantially uniform across multiple regions of the FoV, and may be represented by a scattered light intensity map in which the respective scatter intensities are substantially uniform or non-spatially varying. Such subtraction may improve accuracy with respect to a majority of a scene or field of view that is outside the “flare” zone of the retroreflective target…” ] , wherein a
detection timing of the echo in the flare pixel region overlaps with a detection timing of
the echo in the target pixel region in the distance image data [ paragraph [0046] states, “… Flared light may end up being received at pixels of the detector array that are adjacent or nearby the actual pixel targets. Lens flare or ghosting may cause other optical artifacts. Such light that is redirected to pixels other than the pixel(s) to which the light was otherwise directed may be referred to herein as glare, scattering, background light or signals, “light pollution,” or more generally, stray light…”].
Claims 10 and 12 are met by the subject matter of Fisher et al, as applied to claim 4.
With respect to claim 3, Fisher et al disclose: the processor is further configured to cause the control device to acquire background light image data representing an intensity value of the echo reflected from the reflective target in the detection area based on the echo that is detected by the optical sensor and is an echo of background light [ the function of measured intensity light (p(x, y)) includes scattered light intensity (dd(x, y) and target light intensity (j(x, y)) ], estimation of the flare pixel region includes estimation of the flare pixel region based on an intensity value of the target pixel region in the intensity image data, the intensity value being corrected by an intensity value of the target pixel region in the background light image data [ inferred from determining d(x, y) = p(x, y) – i(x, y) in figure 11 ].
Claim 5 is shown by figure 5 of Fisher et al.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0072946).
Paragraph [0050] of Fisher et al teaches that detected signals are processed to create a 3D point cloud based on time-of-flight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success to have stored the distance values of the detected signals based on the flare removal method of Fisher et al because stored data would have been required to create a 3D point cloud.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 and 7 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights