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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because amendments broaden the interpretation of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 8-10, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lv et al.(US 20230375668 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lv teaches
A measurement device comprising: (The detection apparatus in embodiments of the present disclosure can be applied to various fields such as intelligent transportation, autonomous driving, atmospheric environment monitoring, geographic mapping, and uncrewed aerial vehicle, and can complete one or more functions of target detection, distance measurement, speed measurement, target tracking, imaging recognition, and the like. (paragraph 0139))
a memory storing a program, (The memory 2303 is configured to provide storage space, and the storage space may store data such as an operating system and a computer program. (paragraph 0306))
and at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations comprising: (The processor 2301 in the control apparatus 230 is configured to read the computer program stored in the memory (paragraph 0307))
receiving reflected light of laser light reflected by a target object; (The second beam optical splitter 1042 may split an optical signal from the detection area into a first signal and a second signal, provide the first signal for the first beam optical splitter 1041, and provide the second signal for the image detector 103. (paragraph 0191))
and polarization-separating the received reflected light into first polarized light and second polarized light; (The first beam optical splitter is a polarization beam splitter. The polarization beam splitter can split polarized incident light into two beams of polarized light for transmission. FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of possible beam splitting of a PBS. (paragraph 0216 and fig. 11))
performing object recognition on the target object on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
Regarding claim 8, Lv teaches
The measurement device according to claim 1, further comprising: an image sensor that outputs a captured image on a basis of reception light, (the laser detector may respond to the infrared light, and the image detector is an image sensor for imaging with visible light. (paragraph 0028))
wherein the operations further comprise performing the object recognition on the target object on a basis of the first polarized light, the second polarized light, and the captured image. (Optionally, the detection result of the detection area may be a high-resolution fused image of the detection area, or a 3D image of the detection area. Based on the detection result, a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
Regarding claim 9, Lv teaches
The measurement device according to claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: performing the object recognition on the target object on a basis of recognition information based on three- dimensional information in which the target object is recognized on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light and recognition information based on two-dimensional information in which the target object is recognized on a basis of the captured image. (Optionally, the detection result of the detection area may be a high-resolution fused image of the detection area, or a 3D image of the detection area. Based on the detection result, a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
Regarding claim 10, Lv teaches
The measurement device according to claim 1, wherein one of the first polarized light and the second polarized light is polarized light by a transverse electric (TE) wave, and the other is polarized light by a transverse magnetic (TM) wave. (As show in figure 11 the transverse magnetic and transverse electric waves are shown labeled as S-polarized and P-polarized light.)
Regarding claim 13, Lv teaches
A measurement method, comprising: (The detection apparatus in embodiments of the present disclosure can be applied to various fields such as intelligent transportation, autonomous driving, atmospheric environment monitoring, geographic mapping, and uncrewed aerial vehicle, and can complete one or more functions of target detection, distance measurement, speed measurement, target tracking, imaging recognition, and the like. (paragraph 0139))
receiving reflected light of laser light reflected by a target object; (The second beam optical splitter 1042 may split an optical signal from the detection area into a first signal and a second signal, provide the first signal for the first beam optical splitter 1041, and provide the second signal for the image detector 103. (paragraph 0191))
polarizations-separating the received reflected light into first polarized light and second polarized light; (The first beam optical splitter is a polarization beam splitter. The polarization beam splitter can split polarized incident light into two beams of polarized light for transmission. FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of possible beam splitting of a PBS. (paragraph 0216 and fig. 11))
and performing object recognition on the target object on a basis of first polarized light and second polarized light. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
Regarding claim 18, Lv teaches
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform operations comprising: (an embodiment of the present disclosure discloses a computer-readable storage medium. The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program. When the computer program is run on one or more processors (paragraph 0100))
receiving reflected light of laser light reflected by a target object; (The second beam optical splitter 1042 may split an optical signal from the detection area into a first signal and a second signal, provide the first signal for the first beam optical splitter 1041, and provide the second signal for the image detector 103. (paragraph 0191))
polarization-separating the received reflected light into first polarized light and second polarized light; (The first beam optical splitter is a polarization beam splitter. The polarization beam splitter can split polarized incident light into two beams of polarized light for transmission. FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of possible beam splitting of a PBS. (paragraph 0216 and fig. 11))
and performing object recognition on the target object on a basis of first polarized light and second polarized light. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
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 2-5, 7, 11-12, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al.(US 20230375668 A1) in view of Hinderling et al.(US 20180156895 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; but Lv does teach and performing the object recognition according to the reception timing. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; (As is schematically explained in FIG. 1b, the distance is ascertained from the runtime T.sub.f as the time difference between the starting time of the emission of a light pulse 4 and the receiving time of the backscattered light pulse 4′. (paragraph 0102 and fig. 1b))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light. (a first intensity of a part of the first received partial signal is measured, a second intensity of a part of the second received partial signal is measured, based on the first intensity and the second intensity, a first comparison value is derived (paragraph 0067))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach performing identification of whether or not the target object is a highly reflective object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches performing identification of whether or not the target object is a highly reflective object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification. (The knowledge about a polarization identifier can be utilized here, since, for example, in the case of metallic surfaces or surfaces having strong gloss such as pipes, at which the laser beam reflects away and is incident on a white wall, the degree of polarization DOP is very high (>65%). The reflective surface may thus be identified. (paragraph 0063))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 5 Lv further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: performing identification of whether the target object is a highly reflective object or a high transmittance object, or neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification. (The point cloud information may be used to obtain information such as a distance, a speed, a reflectivity, and reflection intensity of the detection area. (paragraph 0049) obtaining the reflectivity and the reflection intensity is tantamount to determining if an object is highly reflective, transmittance or neither.)
Regarding claim 7, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: determining, in a case where the target object is identified as neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object, that a reception time of reflected light having a highest signal level out of the reflected light is the reception timing.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, in a case where the target object is identified as neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object, that a reception time of reflected light having a highest signal level out of the reflected light is the reception timing. (The ascertainment of the receiving time is performed in this case by the analysis of a feature of the signal pulse s(t), for example, by way of exceeding a signal threshold or by way of sampling of the signal pulse, wherein after identification of the coding of the associated transmitted signal of a received signal from a defined curve point of the sampled and digitized signal, for example, the inflection points, the curve maxima (paragraph 0102))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: receiving reflected light of the laser light reflected by the target object, the laser light being modulated by pulse modulation.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving reflected light of the laser light reflected by the target object, the laser light being modulated by pulse modulation. (In a first step, the signal, often modulated as a pulse (paragraph 0009))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success for easier signal interpretation.
Regarding claim 12, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 1 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: receiving reflected light of the laser light reflected by the target object, the laser light being modulated by a frequency continuously-modulated wave.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving reflected light of the laser light reflected by the target object, the laser light being modulated by a frequency continuously-modulated wave. (Instead of the light pulses, a continuously modulated transmitted signal is often also used. (paragraph 0101))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 13 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; but Lv does teach and performing the object recognition according to the reception timing. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; (As is schematically explained in FIG. 1b, the distance is ascertained from the runtime T.sub.f as the time difference between the starting time of the emission of a light pulse 4 and the receiving time of the backscattered light pulse 4′. (paragraph 0102 and fig. 1b))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 13 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach further comprising: performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches further comprising: performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light. (a first intensity of a part of the first received partial signal is measured, a second intensity of a part of the second received partial signal is measured, based on the first intensity and the second intensity, a first comparison value is derived (paragraph 0067))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 17, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 13 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach further comprising: performing identification of whether the target object is a highly reflective object or a high transmittance object, or neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches further comprising: performing identification of whether the target object is a highly reflective object or a high transmittance object, or neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification. (The knowledge about a polarization identifier can be utilized here, since, for example, in the case of metallic surfaces or surfaces having strong gloss such as pipes, at which the laser beam reflects away and is incident on a white wall, the degree of polarization DOP is very high (>65%). The reflective surface may thus be identified. (paragraph 0063))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 18 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; but Lv does teach and performing the object recognition according to the reception timing. (a distance of an object in the detection area may be determined, and object recognition, analysis, and the like may be performed by using a high-resolution pixel. (paragraph 0054))
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining a reception timing of the reflected light on a basis of the first polarized light and the second polarized light; (As is schematically explained in FIG. 1b, the distance is ascertained from the runtime T.sub.f as the time difference between the starting time of the emission of a light pulse 4 and the receiving time of the backscattered light pulse 4′. (paragraph 0102 and fig. 1b))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 18 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: performing determination on a basis of a comparison result of intensity of the first polarized light and intensity of the second polarized light. (a first intensity of a part of the first received partial signal is measured, a second intensity of a part of the second received partial signal is measured, based on the first intensity and the second intensity, a first comparison value is derived (paragraph 0067))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Regarding claim 21, Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 18 as previously stated, however Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: performing identification of whether the target object is a highly reflective object or a high transmittance object, or neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification.
In the same field of endeavor, Hinderling teaches wherein the operations further comprise: performing identification of whether the target object is a highly reflective object or a high transmittance object, or neither the highly reflective object nor the high transmittance object on a basis of the comparison result, and performing the determination depending on a result of the identification. (The knowledge about a polarization identifier can be utilized here, since, for example, in the case of metallic surfaces or surfaces having strong gloss such as pipes, at which the laser beam reflects away and is incident on a white wall, the degree of polarization DOP is very high (>65%). The reflective surface may thus be identified. (paragraph 0063))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hinderling into the invention of Lv. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of Lv and Hinderling would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al.(US 20230375668 A1) in view of Hinderling et al.(US 20180156895 A1) in further view of Okuni et al.(US 20200300975 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lv teaches all of the elements of claim 5 as previously stated, however modified Lv fails to teach wherein the operations further comprise: selecting, in a case where the target object is identified as the high transmittance object, the reception timing depending on mode setting from a first time of a temporally earliest peak among peaks corresponding to the high transmittance object and a second time of a peak after the first time.
In the same field of endeavor, Okuni teaches wherein the operations further comprise: selecting, in a case where the target object is identified as the high transmittance object, the reception timing depending on mode setting from a first time of a temporally earliest peak among peaks corresponding to the high transmittance object and a second time of a peak after the first time. (the selection unit 114 determines, as ToF, an average value of the first light receiving time t.sub.R4 and the last light receiving time (paragraph 0084))
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Okuni into the invention of Hinderling. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose distance measuring methods. The combination of modified Lv and Okuni would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve object recognition accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN J SLAUGHTER whose telephone number is (571)388-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ETHAN JAKOB SLAUGHTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights