CTNF 18/450,299 CTNF 101513 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. Claims 1-26 are presented for examination. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8, 12, 20 and 24 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. Regarding Claims 8, 12, 20 and 24 , they all recite the limitation of “the pixel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 9-10, 13-18, 21-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220178680 (hereinafter Hariyama) . Regarding Claim 1, Hariyama teaches a distance measurement correction device (control device 119, see FIG. 1) , which corrects a distance measurement result output from a distance measurement device (100) , the distance measurement device measuring a distance to a reflection point on a target by detecting, as a pixel, light reflected on the reflection point in response to irradiation of the light, the distance measurement correction device comprising a processor that is configured to: for each of a plurality of reflection points (FIG. 9 shows a plurality of reflection points distributed across inclined surface 704) , acquire relevant information, which is information related to a distance detected with respect to a pixel corresponding to each of the plurality of reflection points (see curves 602 and 702 corresponding to at least two different reflection points) ; calculate an inclination feature amount ([0129] inclination angle is determined based on distance measurement data) related to an inclination magnitude of each of a plurality of partial surfaces of the target relative to a reference surface (curve 1204 corresponds to a reference surface as determined by locations of multiple reflection points offset from the actual surface 1203, depicted as black dots on curve 1204) , the plurality of partial surfaces of the target including the plurality of reflection points, respectively; and correct the distance to each of the plurality of reflection points based on the corresponding inclination feature amount ([0132] describes correcting the distance based on the calculated feature amount) . Regarding Claim 2, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 1, wherein the processor calculates, as the inclination feature amount, a normal direction of each of the plurality of reflection points (see FIG. 12 showing normal vectors 1201 and 1202 relating to different reflection points) . Regarding Claim 3, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of reflection points includes a reflection point of interest for which the normal direction is to be calculated and multiple reference reflection points other than the reflection point of interest (FIG. 12 shows multiple reference reflection points arranged along curve 1204) , and the processor calculates, for each of the plurality of reflection points, the normal direction based on three-dimensional position information (see FIG. 12 showing normal vectors 1201 and 1202 relating to different reflection points all associated with curve 1204) of the reflection point of interest and the multiple reference reflection points. Regarding Claim 4, Hariyama teaches a distance measurement correction device according to claim 3, wherein the processor extracts the multiple reference reflection points under a condition that an inter-point distance between the reflection point of interest and each of the multiple reference reflection points is within an allowable range (see FIG. 12 showing regular intervals between reference reflection points on curve 1204, all associated with the curved surface depicted in FIG. 12, which is analogous to an allowable range) , and the processor calculates the normal direction (1201) of the reflection point of interest based on the reflection point of interest and the multiple reference reflection points (under at least the third processing by control device embodiment description, see [0131]-[0132] describes using the distance detection waveform to calculate a curvature radius. Calculation of the curvature radius would also generate the normal direction (shown by 1201 in FIG. 12) based on the multiple reference reflection points making up the distance detection waveform) . Regarding Claim 5, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, wherein the processor calculates, for each of the plurality of reflection points, the normal direction based on (i) detected waveform information acquired by detecting the light reflected on the corresponding reflection point (under at least the third processing by control device embodiment description, see [0131]-[0132] describes using the distance detection waveform to calculate a curvature radius. Calculation of the curvature radius would also generate the normal direction (shown by 1201 in FIG. 12) based on the multiple reference reflection points making up the distance detection waveform) and (ii) preliminarily defined information indicating a relationship between the distance and a waveform of light reflected on the corresponding reflection point (the skewed intensity plot in FIG. 12 preliminarily indicates a distance measurement problem, the actual measurement error depicted graphically by distance measurement curve 1204 not coinciding with surface 1203) . Regarding Claim 6, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 3, wherein the processor determines a correction amount of the distance based on an inclination magnitude of the normal direction at the reflection point of interest relative to a line-of-sight direction of the pixel corresponding to the reflection point of interest ([0132] describes correcting the distance based on the calculated feature amount and the inclination amount / angle is based on and thereby relative to the LIDAR emitter) . Regarding Claim 9, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, wherein the processor increases a correction amount of the distance with an increase of a calculation reliability of the normal direction ([0131] describes how the distance correction is weighted using the reliability parameter, see reliability-weighted distance) . Regarding Claim 10, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, wherein the processor increases a correction amount of the distance with an increase of the distance to the corresponding reflection point before correction. ([0056] of the instant specification describes this correction as being a simple result of longer pathways exacerbating detected errors, thereby resulting in larger error corrections being needed at longer ranges, [0080] and Eq(4) of Hariyama describes use of a correction equation that multiplies a skew of the intensity curve by an experimentally based coefficient that would scale with distance due to the path length exacerbating range errors caused by non-orthogonal surfaces). Regarding Claims 13-18, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 1-6. Regarding Claims 21-22, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 9-10. Regarding Claims 25-26, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7, 11, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariyama in view of US20180284276 (hereinafter Campbell) . Regarding Claim 7, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, further comprising an actuator (scanning mechanism 114) that scans the target by irradiating the light, wherein the processor calculates, as the inclination feature amount, the normal direction of each of the plurality of reflection points (see vectors 1201 and 1202 from FIG. 12) based on a change degree in shapes of detected waveforms (FIG. 12 shows a shape change of a waveform varying from the expected gaussian distribution. This variation profile results in a surface distance detection 1204 being short of its actual position 1203 as illustrated in FIG. 12) corresponding to different scan speeds , and the detected waveforms are generated by detecting lights reflected on one of the plurality of reflection points when the one of the plurality of reflection points is scanned by the different scan speeds . The above strikethrough markup shows portions of claim 7 not taught by Hariyama. However, Campbell describes applying different scan speeds to a detected target (see [0123] of Campbell) . A slower scan rate would generally provide a higher pixel density (see [0124] of Campbell) with more laser energy on target , absent a change in other scan parameters, yielding a greater amount of data about a target of interest. This change in scan parameter would result in there being an increase in waveform intensity and a laser spot size with a pulse of the same duration resulting in a wider pulse. Hariyama and Campbell are both directed to LIDAR implementations focused on obtaining accurate ranging data. While Hariyama examples are mainly FMCW systems and Campbell focuses on ToF systems, [0060] of Hariyama describes the techniques as being applicable to ToF systems as well. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Hariyama to incorporate at least a second scan with a variation in scan speed in order to gather more data on a portion of a target to yield a more accurate correction of the surface position in the event waveform shape variations are identified. Examiner notes that the instant specification an claims are silent as to how the collection of scans at different scan speeds assists in correcting range data or even what the expected effect would be on the waveform of increasing or decreasing the scan rate of a light beam across an inclined surface. Incorporation of how a particular change in shape is tied to a better distance correction could help distinguish this claim over the cited art, assuming there is support for such a limitation. Regarding Claims 11, 19 and 23, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8, 12, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariyama in view of Campbell as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US9383753 (hereinafter Templeton) . Regarding Claim 8, Hariyama teaches the distance measurement correction device according to claim 2, and the combination of Hariyama and Campbell as applied to claim 7 teaches further comprising an actuator (scanning mechanism 114 of Hariyama) that scans the target by irradiating the light, wherein the processor calculates, as the inclination feature amount, the normal direction of each of the plurality of reflection points based on a change degree in shapes of detected waveforms corresponding to multiple sub pixels (see FIG. 12 of Hariyama showing multiple normal vectors based on the detected shape of the surface) , the detected waveforms are generated by detecting lights reflected on one of the plurality of reflection points when a scan speed is changed during the one of the plurality of reflection points being scanned (Campbell teaches varying a speed of a scan based on previously collected LIDAR scans but does not specifically teach doing so mid scan) , and the pixel corresponding to the one of the plurality of reflection points is divided into the multiple sub pixels corresponding to the scan speed. However, Templeton does teach varying one or more parameters of a scan during a scan to enhance specific regions of a scan (Col 5 lines 39 to 47 of Templeton describe the collection of enhanced data on only a specific feature of a detected object based on a need to better identify the features of the detected object). Templeton and the combination of Hariyama and Campbell describe LIDAR systems designed to provide enhanced scanning and/or correction of hard to measure features of a detected object. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the combination of Hariyama and Campbell to place the reduced scan speeds taught by Campbell within areas of a detected target for enhanced scanning as taught by Templeton. Transitioning between higher scan speeds (lower spatial resolution) and lower scan speeds would frequently occur within a pixel located on a border between regions in which greater and lower spatial resolution is needed. Regarding Claim 12, 20 and 24, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm. 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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. /BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/450,299 Page 11 Art Unit: 3645
