DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application. In response to Applicant's amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections; the previous rejections under 101; and maintains many of the previous rejections under 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that “the claims are amended in relevant parts to obviate the asserted rejections (Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 6), the Amendment does not meaningfully change or clarify the indefinite limitations listed in the “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” section below. Applicant has not provided specific arguments against any of the below rejections or clarified the meaning of the claim limitations at issue; therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In S1.2 of claim 1, “the points in T” should read “the timestamps Ti in T”.
S1.3 of claim 1 recites calculating a variance Di, but the variables Dt(0) and Dt(0)-1 in S1.2 appear to represent distances.
In S1.4 of claim 1, “data corresponding to the timestamp” should read “the laser radar data corresponding to the timestamp” because the selected data is “laser radar data in G corresponding to the index numbers in I”.
In S1.4 of claim 1, “a segment in which glass is suspected to be present” should read “segments in which glass is suspected to be present” for consistency.
In the preamble of claim 3, “the defect point type” should read “the type of the defect point” for consistency with S4 of claim 1.
In S4.1 of claim 3, “first screening, after a depth matrix is obtained, a defect” should read “first screening, after a depth matrix is obtained, for a defect” for clarity.
In S5.1 of claim 5, “new distance values to the defect point” should read “a new distance value to the defect point”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, S5 has been interpreted as:
performing supplementing, when the defect point is the first-type defect point, by using a median filtering, or
first detecting, when the defect point is the second-type defect point, a defect edge and then calculating distance values between the defect point and nearest boundary points around the defect point to perform supplementing.
In S5 of claim 1, the nearest boundary points are “points in four directions of up, down, left, and right of the defect point”, where the boundary points are found from a sharpened depth matrix boundary according to page 14 of the specification.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein RGBD image detection is introduced”. On page 2, the Specification recites “RGBD image detection is introduced to a method of screening the region in which glass is suspected to be present.” This limitation has been interpreted as capturing an RGBD image.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the median filtering is used for distance supplementing.” This limitation has been interpreted to apply to the supplementing of both the first-type defect point and the second-type defect point recited in S5 of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the distance values of the 24 points are skipped, a median of the distance values is calculated” in S5.1. This limitation has been interpreted such that the median is calculated with the distance values recited in S5 of claim 1 except for the distance values of the 24 points.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “taking all points with missing distance data in the depth matrix… and obtaining a distance average based on distances to the nearest boundary points” in S5.4. The distances to the nearest boundary points has been interpreted as the distances between the points with missing distance data and the nearest boundary points.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “supplementing average data to the depth matrix” in S5.5. The recited average data has been interpreted as the distance average recited in S5.4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “continuously calculating a difference
∆
=
D
t
0
-
D
t
0
-
1
between two pieces of data before and after in the returned distance data” in S1.2. There appears to be at least one word missing in this limitation (before and after what?); therefore, the limitation is indefinite.
In S1.3 of claim 1, it is not clear what “screening out” the variance Di >= Dmin means. Is this removing the variance Di >= Dmin (or corresponding data) from consideration or only selecting the variance Di >= Dmin for consideration? Because it is unclear what data is being considered, the next step, S1.4, where only certain data is selected, is indefinite.
In claim 1, steps S1.2-S1.4 present many limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis and render these steps indefinite:
In S1.2, it is not clear what the subscripts of the equation
∆
=
D
t
0
-
D
t
0
-
1
mean.
In S1.2, it is not clear where “the returned distance data” is returned from (in S1, the laser radar distance data is obtained from processing laser radar information), and what the relationships are between this returned distance data, the “laser radar data Gi” of S1.2, the “laser radar distance information Si” of S1.2, the “laser radar information” of S1, and the “laser radar distance data” of S1. It is unclear if some of these terms refer to the same data or information.
S1.3 recites the limitations “an average value Ei of data in the set S” and “a variance Di of data in the set S”, but G is the set of laser radar data and S is the set of laser radar distance information according to S1.2. Therefore, it is not clear if the average values Ei and the variances Di are calculated from G or S.
In S1.3, it is not clear what type of data (perhaps the laser radar data Gi?) is being recorded after calculating the variance Di. Furthermore, it is not clear what “data corresponding to a timestamp exceeding the variance threshold” means because the variance is calculated with the laser radar distance information of set S, not timestamps. This data and timestamp are also referred to in S1.4.
In S1.3, it is not clear if Dmin is the variance threshold recited in S1.1 or a different value.
S1.3 recites “recording its index number i and denoting the set of the index number i as I”. The antecedent of “its” is not clear. Since i was previously used as an index in S1.2 and S1.3, it is not clear if this recording of i is a different index than the one used for the timestamp Ti, the laser radar data Gi, the laser radar distance information Si, the average value Ei, and the variance Di.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding S1 of claim 1, Tibebu et al. (“LiDAR-Based Glass Detection for Improved Occupancy Grid Mapping”, 03/23/2021) discloses computing an average µ and a standard deviation σ of lidar data for areas having glass and areas having other objects (see equations 1, 2, and 5). The standard deviation of a rolling window of data is then compared to a threshold Trh (similar to a variance threshold) to identify regions suspected to have glass (see equation 3 and Algorithm 1). The estimated distance to the glass and width of the glass region are then calculated from the lidar data (consecutive points, in space and in time) of the selected regions (see Algorithm 3). However, Tibebu et al. does not disclose “defining a distance change threshold” and “continuously calculating a difference
∆
=
D
t
0
-
D
t
0
-
1
between two pieces of data before and after in the returned distance data, searching for a timestamp Ti in which the difference is greater than the distance change threshold and denoting a set of the timestamp Ti as T.”
Regarding S2 of claim 1, He et al. (CN 111707237 A, 09/25/2020) discloses using a convolutional neural network (“U-Net”) for identifying windows (glass) in color images and distance data (see [0015-0020] and [0027]).
Regarding S4 of claim 1, Meguro et al. (JP H05108800 A, 04/30/1993) discloses classifying defects by type (pinhole, dirt, stain) by comparing the sum of dissimilarities (defect points) in a small area (neighboring region) to thresholds (see [0003] and [0005]). However, Meguro et al. does not disclose “wherein using the defect point as a center, if a quantity of defect points of a same type in a neighboring region is less than or equal to a first threshold, it is determined that the defect points is a first-type defect point, or if a quantity of defect points of the same type in the neighboring region is greater than a first threshold, it is determined that the defect points is a second-type defect point” (emphasis added).
Regarding S5 of claim 1, Stommel et al. (“Inpainting of Missing Values in the Kinect Sensor's Depth Maps Based on Background Estimates”, 11/14/2013) discloses inpainting missing distance values (see Fig. 1 and Algorithm 3) by calculating an estimated distance (see equation 2) and using median filtering (see Algorithm 1).
Regarding S3 and S6, Tibebu et al. also discloses that a depth map and occupancy map are created/updated for regions without glass and corrected/inpainted for regions with glass using the estimated distance to the glass segment (see Figs. 10, 12, and 14). However, Tibebu et al. does not disclose “performing plane sampling on an inpainted depth image to obtain distance data.”
While the prior art cited above disclose many of the limitations of claim 1, Examiner did not find prior art alone or in a reasonable combination that teach every element of the claim, particularly those emphasized above. Accordingly, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter.
Similarly, claims 2-8 also contain allowable subject matter because they depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights