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 Amendments
Submission dated 02/03/2026 amends claims 11-20. Claims 1-10 were previously cancelled. Claims 11-20 are pending.
In view of the amendment to claim 11, the previously set forth claim objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the submission dated 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, the applicant argues that Endo as applied does not teach “recording a second recording of the visible object region after the first recording and via actuating the optical sensor and the lighting device in a second chronologically coordinated action at a second distance between the gated camera and the visible object region because the purported first and second recordings are not of a same visible object region. The examiner disagrees because a range of RNGfx corresponds to the same visible object region that were recorded in both IMGfx and IMGfy (see, e.g., FIG. 20 of Endo).
On pages 5-6, the applicant argues that Endo as applied does not teach “inferring a viewing range of the gated camera based on a comparison of the first recording to the second recording” because the purported viewing range is not a range at which imaging with the camera is possible. The examiner disagrees because according to Endo, the effective region is “a range in which an object present in the narrow range RNGfx is imaged” (see par. 156 of Endo) and hence corresponds to a range at which imaging with the camera is possible.
For the aforementioned reasons, the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Us patent application publication no. 2023/0336876 to Endo et al. (hereinafter Endo).
For claim 11, Endo as applied discloses a method for operating a gated camera (see, e.g., pars. 52 and 129-130 and FIGS. 1 and 16), wherein the gated camera has a lighting device (see, e.g., pars. 55 and 130 and FIGS. 1 and 16) and an optical sensor (see, e.g., pars. 55 and 130 and FIGS. 1 and 16), comprising the steps of:
recording a first recording (29.1) of a visible object region of a visible object region via actuating the optical sensor and the lighting device in a first chronologically coordinated actuation at a first distance between the gated camera and the visible object region (see, e.g., pars. 56-58, 60-64, 130-134, 145-146, and 153 and FIGS. 17A and B, which teach setting ranges of the field of view to predetermined depth ranges, such as a narrow range and a wide range and controlling the operations of the illumination device and the image sensor so that the image slices corresponding to the ranges, e.g., the slices for the narrow and wide ranges, are generated, wherein the operations of the illumination device and the image sensor are controlled such that the light emission and exposure are chronologically performed);
recording a second recording of the visible object region after the first recording and via actuating the optical sensor and the lighting device in a second chronologically coordinated action at a second distance between the gated camera and the visible object region (see, e.g., pars. 56-58, 60-64, 130-134, 145-146, and 153 and FIGS. 16 and 17A-B, which teach setting ranges of the field of view to predetermined depth ranges, such as a narrow range and a wide range and controlling the operations of the illumination device and the image sensor so that the image slices corresponding to the ranges, e.g., the slices for the narrow and wide ranges, are generated); and
inferring a viewing range of the gated camera based on a comparison of the first recording to the second recording (see, e.g., pars. 148-157 and FIGS. 21 and 22, which teach determining the effective region that corresponds to a range in which an object present in the narrow range is imaged based on a comparison between the first image data corresponding to the narrow range with the second image data corresponding to the wide range ).
For claim 12, Endo as applied discloses that the first recording is aligned with the second recording via an image registration method prior to the comparison (see, e.g., pars. 153-155, which teach determining pixels of the first and second image data that correspond to one another) and/or wherein at least one moving object or motion artifact is removed in at least one of the first recording and the second recording.
For claim 13, Endo as applied discloses that the comparison is a difference recording is generated as a difference between the first recording and the second recording (29.2) (see, e.g., pars. 153-157, which teach generating a difference image between the first and second image data).
For claim 14, Endo as applied discloses that the comparison is based on an attenuation of a luminance, in a ratio to a difference from the first distance and the second distance (see, e.g., pars. 154-157, which teach using differences in the pixel values of the first and second image data, which represent an attenuation of luminance across the narrow and wide ranges, to generate and evaluate the difference image).
For claim 17, Endo as applied discloses that the viewing range is transmitted by a communication device (see, e.g., pars. 55, 59 and 156-162 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach transmitting the output, e.g., the resulting images and portions thereof, from the arithmetic processing device region).
For claim 18, Endo as applied discloses a control device configured to perform the method of claim 11 (see, e.g., pars. 55-58 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach the camera controller, and also the rejection of claim 11).
For claim 19, Endo as applied discloses a viewing range measurement device, comprising:
a gated camera with a lighting device and an optical sensor (see, e.g., pars. 52, 55 and 129-130 and FIGS. 1 and 16);
a control device configured to perform the method of claim 11 (see, e.g., pars. 55-58 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach the camera controller, and also the rejection of claim 11); and
a communication device configured to transmit the viewing range (see, e.g., pars. 55, 59 and 156-162 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach transmitting the output, e.g., the resulting images and portions thereof, from the arithmetic processing device region).
For claim 20, Endo as applied discloses a motor vehicle (see, e.g., pars. 51 and FIGS. 1 and 14A-B), comprising:
a viewing range measurement device comprising:
a gated camera which has a lighting device and an optical sensor (see, e.g., pars. 52, 55 and 129-130 and FIGS. 1 and 16));
a control device configured to perform the method of claim 11 (see, e.g., pars. 55-58 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach the camera controller, and also the rejection of claim 11); and
a communication device configured to transmit the viewing range (see, e.g., pars. 55, 59 and 156-162 and FIGS. 1 and 16, which teach transmitting the output, e.g., the resulting images and portions thereof, from the arithmetic processing device region).
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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Us patent application publication no. 2022/0003864 to Nose et al. (hereinafter Nose).
For claim 15, Endo as applied teaches that via the attenuation of the luminance and a pre-determined threshold luminance, the viewing range of the gated camera is calculated (see, e.g., pars. 154-157 of Endo, which teach, when calculating the effective region, subtracting the pixel values of one image data from those of another image data and keeping only those pixel values that are not cancelled out).
Since the difference between the corresponding pixel values has to be greater than zero for the pixels to be not cancelled out, the examiner may interpret the pixel value difference of zero as the claimed predetermined threshold luminance. However, for the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner relies on Nose in the analogous art that explicitly teaches calculating the limit distance measuring range by comparing the luminance values to the thresholds (see, e.g., 164-167 and FIG. 7 of Nose).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Endo to use the luminance thresholds in calculating the viewing range as taught by Nose because doing would yield predictable results of limiting the number of the luminance values to be compared, hence increasing the speed of the comparison (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of DE (German) patent application publication no. 102016014549 to Brenk et al. (hereinafter Brenk).
For claim 16, while Endo as applied does not explicitly teach, Brenk in the analogous art teaches that a maximum speed for a motor vehicle with the gated camera is determined based on the viewing range (see, e.g., par. 6 of Brenk, which teaches calculating the maximum velocity of the vehicle on the basis of the range of visibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Endo to determine the maximum allowable speed as taught by Brenk because doing would yield predictable results of allowing a driver to be informed of the maximum allowable speed and practice safe driving accordingly (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676