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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regard to application # 18/717,375 that was filed on 06/06/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are under examination.
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) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirbach et al. (US 2010/0283888) and Nakamura (US 2021/0141090) in view of Subasingha et al. (US 2019/0293769).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Mirbach discloses a distance measurement apparatus (Fig. 1) that emits pulsed-light emitted from a light source (20, Fig. 1) through a transmissive member (24, Fig. 1) and causes a light receiving unit (16, Fig. 1) to detect the pulsed-light reflected by a target object, the distance measurement apparatus comprising (Fig. 1 and 8-9, para. [0008]-[0014] and [0042], Claim 1-8 (discloses a TOF range imaging/distance measurement system that receives light through an optical interface (transmissive member) and determines the presence of contamination(attached-matter) on the optical interface from amplitude/ intensity information of the received light signal).
Nakamura also discloses a distance measurement device that detects dirt (oil/fat contamination) on the cover glass of a TOF camera by analyzing light intensity/signal amount data for each pixel without requiring a clean reference measurement under all conditions (para. [0003]-[0008], [0034].
Subasingha teaches that strong near field returns(short distance targets internal reflections from contaminated window) produce partially saturated(flat-top) reception wave forms, and that the saturated waveforms are analyzed(arriving edge, width, or non-saturated portions) to extract timing or amplitude information for distance or diagnostic purposes (abstract, Figs. 2A-2B, claims, para. [0045]-[0046], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dirt/ contamination detection of Mirbach and Nakamura With the known analysis of saturated short-range waveforms taught by Subasingha with a great expectation of success for reliable detection of window contamination(whether or not an attached-matter exists) or near field objects that produce abnormally strong returns (a determination on whether or not the target object is at a short distance from the distance measurement apparatus). As for Claim 3, the combination in claim 1 determines whether attached-matter exists or the target exists at a short distance by using a saturation waveform.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mirbach/ Nakamura discloses a distance measurement apparatus (Fig. 1) wherein the saturation waveform is obtained from pulsed-light reception for a first time by the light receiving unit after the emission of the pulsed-light (Subasingha, para. [0009], Figs. 2B, 4A), para. [0021]-[0025]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, claim 4 requires that the determination unit: specifies a virtual peak position by using a plurality of data points including a start point of the saturation in the saturation waveform; and performs the determination by comparing the virtual peak position and a predetermined reference position. Claim 5 further requires that the reference position is a position determined based on a reception light peak of internal reflection light obtained when there is no attached-matter at the transmissive member and the no target object at the short distance.
Subasingha teaches the recovery of timing information from a saturated (flat-top) waveform analyzing the rising age or non-saturated positions of the pulse, including estimation of a peak (virtual/estimated peak) location when the true peak is clipped (para. [0045]-[0046], Fig. 2A, 2B). Using a plurality of data points that begin at the onset of saturation is a conventional and predictable implementation of peak recovery technique. Mirbach and Nakamura teach that contamination/dirt on the optical window produces abnormal near-field returns, and that diagnostic determinations are made by reference to expected or calibrated signal characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the saturated waveform peak recovery method of Subasingha to the saturation waveform already used for the determinations in claim 1, thereby obtaining a virtual peak position from data points that include the start of saturation, and compare that virtual peak position to the reference position previously obtained from internal reflection under clean window/no near-object conditions (a standard calibration step already contemplated by the dirt detection references), with a great expectation of success, in order to obtain a reliable timing or amplitude metric from clipped waveform presence of window contamination or short distance target can be accurately distinguished. There is no unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 7, claim 7 requires that the determination unit performs the determination(whether attached matter exists at the transmissive member and/or whether the target object exists at a short distance) by using a slope of a rising portion of in the saturation waveform. Claim 1 already requires the use of saturation waveform for at least one of those determinations. Subasingha teaches that, when a return signal is classified as saturated, a dedicated detector is selected that extracts timing information by detecting the rising edge of a saturated pulse. (Fig. 2A, 2B, 6A-6F, para. [0045]-[0046], [0071]-[0080]). Using the slope (gradient/ rate of rise) of that arriving portion is a conventional and predictable numerical implementation of the rising age analysis already discussed in and then the Subasingha.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply rising edge/slope analysis of saturation waveform already used in claim 1 to make dirt-on-window or short-distance determination taught by Mirbach and Nakamura with great expectation of success to extract a reliable metric from a clipped waveform that distinguishes window contamination or near field object. There is no unexpected result.
Regarding Claim 8, the apparatus claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1 above since the apparatus uses a saturation waveform to perform the exact determinations recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the method claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1 above since the method uses a method of saturation waveforms to perform the exact determinations recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakamura discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer (para. [0035],[0135]) to function as: the determination apparatus of claim 8. Subasingha also teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer ([0097]) to function as: the controlling apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirbach et al. (US 2010/0283888) and Nakamura (US 2021/0141090) in view of Subasingha et al. (US 2019/0293769), and further view of Gilbert et al. (US 2009/0228245).
Regarding Claim 6, Mirbach and Nakamura teach recovery of an estimated/virtual peak location from saturated (flat-top) waveform by analyzing non saturated portions of the pulse (see rejection of claim 1 and 4). Gilbert teaches fitting a Gaussian model to the non-saturated rising and falling portions of a peak, whose top is saturated/clipped, thereby recovering the true peak position that would have existed without saturation(see the discussion of saturated and the deliberate exclusion of saturated points from the Gaussian fit so that the model reconstructs the buried peak, Fig. 16, para. [0105]-[0108]).
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skilling art before the effective filing date of the invention, once the virtual peak determination claim 4 rendered obvious to implement that determination by fitting a Gaussian curve(or other secondary/ polynomial curve) through the plurality of data points that the start of saturation, exactly as taught by Gilbert with a great expectation of success to obtain a more accurate estimate of the buried peak location from the available non-saturated samples. There is no unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:.
Hibino et al. (US 2020/0142042) discloses a distance measurement apparatus (100, Fig. 3) that emits pulsed-light emitted from a light source (2, Fig. 3) through a transmissive member (12, Fig. 4A) and causes a light receiving unit (7, Fig. 3, 4A) to detect the pulsed-light reflected by a target object, the distance measurement apparatus comprising (Fig. 1 and 8-9, para. [0035]-[0037] and [0047]):
a determination unit that performs [at least one of] a determination on whether or not an attached-matter exists at the transmissive member (by+ means of dirt detector 1b, Fig. 1) and a determination on whether or not the target object is at a short distance from the distance measurement apparatus (by means of object detector 1a, Fig. 1) (Fig. 4 and 8, para. [0063] and [0081]-[0089]), but lacks to disclose using a saturation waveform that is a reception pulsed-light waveform which is generated by the light receiving unit and in which a reception light signal is partially saturated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights