DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 03/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object.
The best prior art of record, Hirai (US 20140184800 A1) discloses infrared light and an image sensor with sensitivity to light in the infrared wavelength band, as described in paragraphs [0087] and [0098]. However, the infrared light is used to detect the presence of raindrops on a windshield and is not infrared blackbody radiation emitted by a moving object (eg. pedestrians and vehicles), as described in [0023] of the instant application’s Specification.
Applicant also argues the prior art of record does not disclose determining that the infrared light comprises direct light or reflected light.
While Hirai does disclose using polarization ratios to determine that the incoming light from a vehicle’s headlights or taillights comprises direct or reflected light in paragraphs [0042] and [0189]-[0190], Hirai does not teach detecting infrared blackbody radiation emitted by a moving object (eg. pedestrians and vehicles) and determining, based on a determined polarization ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,442 (Frevert '442) in view of Hirai (US-20140184800-A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Frevert ‘442 recites a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising:
receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object;
determining, based on the received information, a ratio between two polarizations corresponding to the target object; and
determining, based on the determined ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2: Frevert ‘442 recites the controller of claim 1, wherein determining the ratio comprises dividing a first polarization intensity by a second polarization intensity, wherein the first polarization intensity comprises an intensity of the infrared light having a first polarization, and wherein the second polarization intensity comprises an intensity of the infrared light having a second polarization (claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 2, wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are different linear light polarizations (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4: Frevert ‘442 recites the controller of claim 2, wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are perpendicular linear light polarizations (claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5: Frevert ‘442 recites the controller of claim 1, wherein the at least one infrared detector comprises at least one micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) infrared detector (claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6: Frevert ‘442 recites the controller of claim 1, wherein the at least one infrared detector comprises:
a first infrared detector configured to detect infrared light having a first linear polarization; and
a second infrared detector configured to detect infrared light having a second linear polarization, wherein the first linear polarization and the second linear polarization are perpendicular with respect to one another (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7: Frevert ‘442 recites the controller of claim 1, wherein determining that the infrared light comprises direct light or reflected light comprises at least one of:
determining that the infrared light comprises direct light if the determined ratio is within a direct light polarization range; or
determining that the infrared light comprises reflected light if the determined ratio is within a reflected light polarization range (claim 7).
Regarding Claim 8: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 7, wherein the direct light polarization range is 0.4 to 0.6, and wherein the reflected light polarization range is 0 to 0.4 and 0.6 to 1 (claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the received information, a target object type, wherein the target object type comprises at least one of: an obstacle, a pedestrian, a vehicle, a roadway, a sign, or a traffic light (claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the received information and the polarization ratio, a target object location (claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving at least one of: LIDAR data, radar data, or camera data indicative of a reflective surface, wherein determining the target object location is further based on a location of the reflective surface (claim 11).
Regarding Claim 12: Frevert ‘442 recites the system of claim 11, wherein determining that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises reflected light is further based on the LIDAR data, radar data, or camera data indicative of the reflective surface (claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13: Frevert ‘442 recites a vehicle comprising: at least one infrared detector, wherein the at least one infrared detector is configured to detect infrared light corresponding to a target object within a field of view, wherein the field of view comprises an environment of the vehicle, wherein the infrared light comprises at least one of a first polarization or a second polarization; and a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising: receiving, from the at least one infrared detector, information indicative of infrared light corresponding to the target object; determining, based on the received information, a polarization ratio corresponding to the target object; and determining, based on the polarization ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light (claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14: Frevert ‘442 recites the vehicle of claim 13, wherein determining the polarization ratio comprises dividing a first polarization intensity by a second polarization intensity.
Regarding Claim 15: Frevert ‘442 recites a method comprising:
receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object;
determining, based on the received information, a ratio between two polarizations corresponding to the target object; and
determining, based on the determined ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light (claim 15).
Regarding Claim 16: Frevert ‘442 recites the method of claim 15, wherein determining the ratio comprises dividing a first polarization intensity by a second polarization intensity, wherein the first polarization intensity comprises an intensity of the infrared light having a first polarization, and wherein the second polarization intensity comprises an intensity of the infrared light having a second polarization, wherein the first polarization and the second polarization are different linear light polarizations (claim 16).
Regarding Claim 17: Frevert ‘442 recites the method of claim 15, wherein determining that the infrared light comprises direct light or reflected light comprises at least one of:
determining that the infrared light comprises direct light if the determined ratio is within a direct light polarization range; or
determining that the infrared light comprises reflected light if the determined ratio is within a reflected light polarization range (claim 17).
Regarding Claim 18: Frevert ‘442 recites the method of claim 17, wherein the direct light polarization range is 0.4 to 0.6, and wherein the reflected light polarization range is 0 to 0.4 and 0.6 to 1 (claim 18).
Regarding Claim 19: Frevert ‘442 recites the method of claim 15, further comprising:
determining, based on the received information, a target object type, wherein the target object type comprises at least one of: an obstacle, a pedestrian, a vehicle, a roadway, a sign, or a traffic light (claim 19).
Regarding Claim 20: Frevert ‘442 recites the method of claim 15, further comprising:
receiving at least one of: LIDAR data, radar data, or camera data indicative of a location of a reflective surface; and
determining a target object location based on the received information, the determined ratio, and the location of the reflective surface (claim 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under double patenting above. The claims would be allowable pending a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1: The best prior art of record, Hirai (US-20140184800-A1), discloses a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (208), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising:
receiving information detected by at least one detector that is indicative of light corresponding to a target object (Fig. 31, S1; [0087]: “According to the present embodiment, the light source 202 emits light having a wavelength in the infrared light area”; [0098] “…in the present embodiment, each light receiving element constituting the image sensor 206 has sensitivity to the light in the infrared wavelength band”);
determining, based on the received information, a ratio between two polarizations corresponding to the target object ([0210]: Polarization ratio H; equation 3); and
Hirai fails to teach receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object; and
determining, based on the determined ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 1-12 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13: A vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising:
a controller comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (208), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the at least one memory so as to carry out operations, the operations comprising:
receiving information detected by at least one detector that is indicative of light corresponding to a target object (Fig. 31, S1); and
determining, based on the received information, a ratio between two polarizations corresponding to the target object ([0210]: Polarization ratio H; equation 3);
Hirai fails to teach receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object; and
determining, based on the determined ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claim 14is allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15: Hirai discloses a method comprising:
receiving information detected by at least one detector that is indicative of light corresponding to a target object (Fig. 31, S1);
determining, based on the received information, a ratio between two polarizations corresponding to the target object ([0210]: Polarization ratio H; equation 3).
Hirai fails to teach receiving information detected by at least one infrared detector that is indicative of infrared light corresponding to a target object; and
determining, based on the determined ratio, that the infrared light corresponding to the target object comprises direct light or reflected light.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 16-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights