DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 09/22/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With regard to claim 8 (and claims 9 – 14 by incorporation), it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the "memory" encompasses signals per se. Looking to the disclosure, the "memory" is not defined as excluding transitory signals (see the instant application Paragraph 82 “In certain embodiments, the local computing device 1110 includes one or more memory devices, e.g., RAM or ROM, one or more network interfaces, e.g., wired and/or wireless communications interfaces, and/or other hardware or processing devices that are not shown in FIG. 11.”)
A claim whose broadest reasonable interpretation covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(/1). Examiner suggest reciting “non-transitory computer readable medium” or similar to, thereby excluding the non-statutory subject matter. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter since tangible memories are explicitly disclosed.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 – 14 are rejected in the alternative to being directed to non-statutory subject matter, by incorporating the suggested amendment to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method of simulating the effect of fog on a photon, comprising steps: (a) selecting a starting position of the photon in a 3D environment; (b) selecting a propagation vector directed from the starting position toward a target disposed in the 3D environment; (c) selecting a propagation distance; (d) determining a new position of the photon based in part on the starting position of the photon, the propagation vector, and the propagation distance; (e) determining whether the photon is absorbed before reaching the new position; and (f) determining, if the photon has not been absorbed, whether the photon intersects the target before reaching the new position, wherein the target is disposed at a predefined position in the 3D environment. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting” and “determining” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 - 7 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 (g) selecting, if the photon has not intersected the target, a deviation angle and a polar angle; (h) determining a new propagation vector based on the prior propagation vector and the selected deviation angle and the selected polar angle; (i) setting the starting position equal to the new position; and (j) repeating steps (c)-(h); Claim 3 modifying the new position, if the photon has intersected the target, to be located at an intersection of the propagation vector and a surface of the target; Claim 4 the step of selecting a propagation vector comprises statistically sampling a distribution of an isotropy parameter; Claim 5 the step of selecting a propagation distance comprises randomly selecting a value from an exponential distribution having a Mean Free Path (MFP); Claim 6 the step of determining whether the photon is absorbed comprises randomly selecting a value from a uniform distribution over a range and conditionally evaluating the selected value against a threshold; Claim 7 counting the number of times that step (d) is performed; comparatively evaluating the count against an iteration limit; and determining that the photon is absorbed if the count exceeds the iteration limit. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting” and “modifying” and “conditionally evaluating” and “counting” and “comparatively evaluating” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “repeating” merely repeats previously recited “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting”. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “statistically sampling” and “randomly selecting a value” recite mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) (in the alternative to being directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating the suggested amendment reciting “non-transitory computer readable medium”) non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for simulating an effect of fog on a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensor that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps: (a) selecting a starting position of the photon in a 3D environment; (b) selecting a propagation vector directed from the starting position toward a target disposed in the 3D environment; (c) selecting a propagation distance; (d) determining a new position of the photon based in part on the starting position of the photon, the propagation vector, and the propagation distance; (e) determining whether the photon is absorbed before reaching the new position; and (f) determining, if the photon has not been absorbed, whether the photon intersects the target before reaching the new position, wherein the target is disposed at a predefined position in the 3D environment. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting” and “determining” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 – 14 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 9 (g) selecting, if the photon has not intersected the target, a deviation angle and a polar angle; (h) determining a new propagation vector based on the prior propagation vector and the selected deviation angle and the selected polar angle; (i) setting the starting position equal to the new position; and (j) repeating steps (c)-(h); Claim 10 modifying the new position, if the photon has intersected the target, to be located at an intersection of the propagation vector and a surface of the target; Claim 11 the step of selecting a propagation vector comprises statistically sampling a distribution of an isotropy parameter; Claim 12 the step of selecting a propagation distance comprises randomly selecting a value from an exponential distribution having a Mean Free Path (MFP); Claim 13 the step of determining whether the photon is absorbed comprises randomly selecting a value from a uniform distribution over a range and conditionally evaluating the selected value against a threshold; Claim 14 counting the number of times that step (d) is performed; comparatively evaluating the count against an iteration limit; and determining that the photon is absorbed if the count exceeds the iteration limit. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting” and “modifying” and “conditionally evaluating” and “counting” and “comparatively evaluating” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “repeating” merely repeats previously recited “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting”. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “statistically sampling” and “randomly selecting a value” recite mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for simulating an effect of fog on a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensor,
to perform steps: (a) selecting a starting position of the photon in a 3D environment; (b) selecting a propagation vector directed from the starting position toward a target disposed in the 3D environment; (c) selecting a propagation distance; (d) determining a new position of the photon based in part on the starting position of the photon, the propagation vector, and the propagation distance; (e) determining whether the photon is absorbed before reaching the new position; and (f) determining, if the photon has not been absorbed, whether the photon intersects the target before reaching the new position, wherein the target is disposed at a predefined position in the 3D environment. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting” and “determining” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a processor communicatively coupled to the LiDAR sensor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising instructions that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps. The “processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 16 (g) selecting, if the photon has not intersected the target, a deviation angle and a polar angle; (h) determining a new propagation vector based on the prior propagation vector and the selected deviation angle and the selected polar angle; (i) setting the starting position equal to the new position; and (j) repeating steps (c)-(h); Claim 17 modifying the new position, if the photon has intersected the target, to be located at an intersection of the propagation vector and a surface of the target; Claim 18 the step of selecting a propagation vector comprises statistically sampling a distribution of an isotropy parameter; Claim 19 the step of selecting a propagation distance comprises randomly selecting a value from an exponential distribution having a Mean Free Path (MFP); Claim 20 the step of determining whether the photon is absorbed comprises randomly selecting a value from a uniform distribution over a range and conditionally evaluating the selected value against a threshold. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting” and “modifying” and “conditionally evaluating” amounts to modeling and predicting actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “repeating” merely repeats previously recited “selecting … a deviation angle and a polar angle” and “determining” and “setting”. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “statistically sampling” and “randomly selecting a value” recite mathematical calculations. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further recited limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 12 and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson et al. “Multi-Scattering software: part I: online accelerated Monte Carlo simulation of light transport through scattering media” (henceforth “Jonsson”) in view of Grabner et al. “Multiple Scattering in Rain and Fog on Free-Space Optical Links” (henceforth “Grabner”). Jonsson and Grabner are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating photon propagation in fog, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulating photon propagation.
With regard to claim 1, Jonsson teaches a method of simulating the effect of fog on a photon, comprising steps: (Jonsson Abstract “There are countless types of scattering media in which this model can be used to predict light transport, including medical tissues, blood samples, clouds, smoke, fog, turbid liquids, spray systems, etc.”)
(a) selecting a starting position of the photon in a 3D environment; (Jonsson Page 37623, Bottom starting position in volume is random “In contrast to sequential launching, this random positioning of the photons starting point is beneficial in preserving the intensity profile of the source in situations where a simulation is stopped prior to completion”, and Figure 6 within a volume (a 3D environment)
PNG
media_image1.png
234
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
(b) selecting a propagation vector directed from the starting position disposed in the 3D environment; (Jonsson Page 37624, Bottom “1) By setting up a photon dispersion cone angle: In this case photons are given a random direction vector that is uniformly constrained within the cone angle defined by theta_start”)
(c) selecting a propagation distance; (d) determining a new position of the photon based in part on the starting position of the photon, the propagation vector, and the propagation distance; (Jonsson Page 37625 the next scattering position continues along the direction vector from the starting position by a distance (based on starting position, vector, distance) “By knowing the distance Lfp and the initial direction of propagation, the position of the next scattering/absorbing center is calculated within the absolute (XYZ) coordinate system.”)
determining scattering theory (Jonsson Page 37621, Bottom software include the use of Mie scattering theory)
Jonsson does not appear to explicitly disclose: that the selecting a propagation vector is towards a target disposed in the 3D environment; (e) determining whether the photon is absorbed before reaching the new position; and (f) determining, if the photon has not been absorbed, whether the photon intersects the target before reaching the new position, wherein the target is disposed at a predefined position in the 3D environment.
However, Grabner teaches:
selecting a propagation vector directed from a starting position toward a target disposed in a 3D environment; (Grabner Figure 1 propagation of the photon is towards a detector (a target) uniformly distributed over a cone from a starting position
PNG
media_image2.png
307
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
(e) determining whether a photon is absorbed before reaching a new position; and (Grabner Page 514, Left the scattering length of Jonsson can randomly be an absorption according the same Mie scattering theory as Jonsson “5) The process of absorption or scattering is selected randomly with probabilities proportional to absorption and scattering cross sections determined using Mie scattering theory”)
(f) determining, if the photon has not been absorbed, whether the photon intersects the target before reaching the new position, wherein the target is disposed at a predefined position in the 3D environment. (Grabner Page 514, Right photon that exit simulation domain are equivalent to not reaching the detector (determining whether the photon intersects the target) “3) Photon is checked whether it has reached a detector (receiver) aperture or is outside a simulation domain. If so, the path is finished. (cont. step 8)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media disclosed by Jonsson with the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media towards a detector disclosed by Grabner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to model scatting in dense fog (Grabner Abstract).
With regard to claim 8, it recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Jonsson in view of Grabner. Claim 8 further recites: a memory comprising instructions for simulating an effect of fog on a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensor that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps.
Jonsson teaches:
a memory comprising instructions for simulating an effect of fog on a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensor that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps (Jonsson Page 37629, Bottom “However, the benefit of this architecture comes from the fact that each core can access different regions of memory which means that the GPU is highly optimized for calculations using multiple input data and producing multiple output data.”)
With regard to claim 15, it recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Jonsson in view of Grabner. Claim 15 further recites: a system for simulating an effect of fog on a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) sensor, comprising: a processor communicatively coupled to the LiDAR sensor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising instructions that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps.
Jonsson teaches:
a processor communicatively coupled to the LiDAR sensor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor and comprising instructions that, when loaded into a processor and executed, cause the processor to perform steps. (Jonsson Page 37629, Bottom “However, the benefit of this architecture comes from the fact that each core can access different regions of memory which means that the GPU is highly optimized for calculations using multiple input data and producing multiple output data.”, and Page 37615, Middle the steps can simulate real lidar measurements “Soon after, the same authors generated several articles using their MC code to deduce the radiance of multiple scattered light for a typical haze [23], for an atmosphere-ocean system [24] as well as for investigating time-of-flight Lidar measurements in oceans [25].”)
With regard to claim 2 and 9 and 16, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches:
(g) selecting, if the photon has not intersected the target, a deviation angle and a polar angle; (Jonsson Page 37626, Bottom and Figure 10 photons scatter at angles theta_s (deviation angle) and phi_s (polar angle)
PNG
media_image3.png
63
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
167
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
(h) determining a new propagation vector based on the prior propagation vector and the selected deviation angle and the selected polar angle; (i) setting the starting position equal to the new position; and (Jonsson Page 37627, Middle new propagation vector (i.e., direction and distance) starts from the scattering position (based on the prior propagation vector) at the angles (based on the two angles) “Each time photons scatter from an interaction center, a new free path length lfp is calculated defining the distance traveled by photons prior to the next interaction”)
(j) repeating steps (c)-(h). (Jonsson Figure 9 the scattering process is iterative
PNG
media_image5.png
308
273
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 3 and 10 and 17, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 9 and 16, and further teaches:
modifying the new position, if the photon has intersected the target, to be located at an intersection of the propagation vector and a surface of the target. (Grabner Page 514, Left reaching the detector terminates the photon propagation path (modify9ing the new position if intersected target) “3) Photon is checked whether it has reached a detector (receiver) aperture or is outside a simulation domain. If so, the path is finished. (cont. step 8)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media disclosed by Jonsson with the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media towards a detector disclosed by Grabner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to model scatting in dense fog (Grabner Abstract).
With regard to claim 4 and 11 and 18, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches:
the step of selecting a propagation vector comprises statistically sampling a distribution of an isotropy parameter. (Jonsson Page 37624, Bottom direction of vector is uniformly distributed (sampling a distribution) over a cone defined by theta_start (an isotropy parameter)
PNG
media_image6.png
46
679
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 5 and 12 and 19, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and further teaches:
the step of selecting a propagation distance comprises randomly selecting a value from an exponential distribution having a Mean Free Path (MFP). (Grabner 514, Left propagation distance is random distribution based on MFP
PNG
media_image7.png
294
473
media_image7.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media disclosed by Jonsson with the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media by parameterized random propagation distance disclosed by Grabner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more accurately model scatting in dense fog (Grabner Abstract).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson in view of Grabner, and further in view of Baes et al. “Monte Carlo radiative transfer with explicit absorption to simulate absorption, scattering, and stimulated emission” (henceforth “Baes”). Jonsson and Grabner and Baes are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating photon propagation in fog, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulating photon propagation.
With regard to claim 6 and 13 and 20, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8 and 15, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: the step of determining whether the photon is absorbed comprises randomly selecting a value from a uniform distribution over a range and conditionally evaluating the selected value against a threshold.
However, Baes teaches:
a step of determining whether the photon is absorbed comprises randomly selecting a value from a uniform distribution over a range and conditionally evaluating the selected value against a threshold. (Baes Page 4, Right scattering depth is randomly selected and compared to a threshold to determine if photon remains in system (determining whether photon is absorbed)
PNG
media_image8.png
521
478
media_image8.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media disclosed by Jonsson in view of Grabner with the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media by random depth determination disclosed by Baes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to more efficiently model the photon absorption (Baes Abstract “We present the explicit absorption technique that allows net stimulated emission to be handled efficiently. It uses the scattering rather than the extinction optical depth along a photon packet’s path to randomly select the next interaction location”).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson in view of Grabner, and further in view of Aoki et al. “Analysis of Space Distribution of Scattered Light by Monte Carlo Method in Consideration of Atmospheric Particles” (henceforth “Aoki”). Jonsson and Grabner and Aoki are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating photon propagation in fog, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulating photon propagation.
With regard to claim 7 and 14, Jonsson in view of Grabner teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 8, and does not appear to explicitly disclose: counting the number of times that step ( d) is performed; comparatively evaluating the count against an iteration limit; and determining that the photon is absorbed if the count exceeds the iteration limit.
However, Aoki teaches:
counting a number of times that step (d) is performed; comparatively evaluating the count against an iteration limit; and determining that a photon is absorbed if the count exceeds the iteration limit. (Aoki Figure 4 photon propagation is continued until absorption or a specified maximum number of scattering
PNG
media_image9.png
154
362
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media disclosed by Jonsson in view of Grabner with the method of simulating photon scattering in dispersive media by maximum number of scattering disclosed by Aoki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve an efficiency of the simulation (Aoki Page 32, Right “But the time required for calculation is long … maximum number of scattering is counted up to infinity, which requires an infinite length of time for calculation”).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Guo et al. “Propagation Model of Pulsed Laser in Rain Based on Monte Carlo Simulation” teaches simulation photons propagating in the rain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
