Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
SUMMARY
2. The patent application filed on February 28, 2025, has been received and recorded. There were 1-14 claims in the original application of which claim 1 was independent claim. A preliminary amendment was filed on the same day where applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are maintained in the preliminary amendment. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as a new claim in the preliminary amendment. Therefore, claims 1-14 have been pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application on February 28, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(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.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McMichael et al.(US 12,710,511 B1) (herein after McMichael).
Regarding claim 1, McMichael teaches a spatial profiling system(Col-1, Lines 4-6: a time-of-flight sensor of a vehicle) for profiling an environment, the spatial profiling system including:
a light transmitter(emitter 110, fig.1, Col-3, Lines 52-55; emitter 304, fig.3) for providing light;
a beam director(filter 306, fig.3) for directing the light in one or more directions towards the environment(Col-11, Lines 18-23);
a light receiver(sensor 108, fig.1; sensor 308, fig.3) for receiving return light reflected by a surface or object(object 114, 314, figs.1, 3) in the environment, the return light carrying information for determining a distance to the surface or object(Col-6, Lines 26-32, the light receiver being configured to detect (a) specularity of the return light (reflectivity information, specularity information; col-16, Lines 25-34) and (b) polarization state of the return light(Col-5, Line-24 to Col-6, Line-4); and
a processing system(processors 210, fig.2) configured for determining a material associated with the surface or object based on the detected specularity(reflectivity information, specularity information) and the detected polarization state (col-9, Line-59 to Col-10, Line-29).
Regarding claim 2, McMichael teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to determine the material associated with the surface or object by classifying the material into one of multiple material categories(col-9, Line-59 to Col-10, Line-29; Col-15, Lines 11-34).
Regarding claim 3, McMichael teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 2, wherein classifying the material into one of multiple material categories includes classification includes applying one or more machine learning algorithms(Col-16, Line-66 to Col-17, Line-49).
Regarding claim 4, McMichael teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 1, wherein the light receiver is further configured to detect specularity based on an image(col-9, Line-59 to Col-10, Line-29)(or interference pattern related to speckle- not considered as it added with “OR” logic).
Regarding claim 5, McMichael teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 4, wherein the image or interference is representative of a spatial sample of the surface(wet road surface) or the objected from which light is reflected(col-9, Line-59 to Col-10, Line-29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMichael et al.(US 12,710,511 B1) in view of Hazeghi et al.(US 9,826,216 B1)(herein after Hazeghi).
Regarding claim 6, McMichael is not found to teach expressly the spatial profiling system of claim 1, wherein the light receiver is further configured to detect specularity based on a plurality of despeckled signals.
However, Hazeghi teaches a system for compact space-time stereo three-dimensional depth sensing, wherein the light receiver is further configured to detect specularity based on a plurality of despeckled signals(Col-6, Line-30 to Col-7, Line-7).
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of McMichael and Hazeghi, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Such a combination is desirable as it provides a system to enhance the signal/noise ratio in imagery acquired by optical acquisition system.
Regarding claim 7, McMichael as modified by Hazeghi teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 6, wherein the light receiver is further configured to recover or provide a measure of amplitude and/or a measure of phase of one or more of the plurality of despeckled signals(intensity and phase; Col-6, Line-30 to Col-7, Line-7, Hazeghi).
Regarding claim 8, McMichael as modified by Hazeghi teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 7, wherein the specularity is characterized by one or more specularity parameters, each specularity parameter being associated with the amplitude of one of the one or more of the plurality of despeckled signals(intensity and phase; Col-6, Line-30 to Col-7, Line-7, Hazeghi).
10. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMichael et al.(US 12,710,511 B1) in view of Toussaint et al.(US 2019/0355106 A1)(herein after Toussaint).
Regarding claim 12, McMichael is not found to teach expressly the spatial profiling system of claim 1, wherein the light receiver is further configured to detect the polarization state based on a degree of preservation of the polarization state.
However, Toussaint teaches a system, wherein the light receiver is further configured to detect the polarization state based on a degree of preservation of the polarization state(Para-86).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified McMichae with the teaching of Toussaint to include the feature in order to minimize unwanted polarization scattering effects.
Regarding claim 13, McMichael as modified by Toussaint teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 12, wherein the degree of preservation of the polarization state is representative of the degree of polarization of the return light relative to the degree of polarization of the outgoing light(Col-2, Lines 1-9; Col-3, Line-50 to Col-4, Line-31, McMichael) or the local oscillator.
Regarding claim 14, McMichael as modified by Toussaint teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 12, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine the material associated(object characteristics) with the surface or object, based on the degree of preservation of the polarization state(Col-2, Lines 1-9; Col-3, Line-50 to Col-4, Line-31, McMichael).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the inventor’s claim invention, “the spatial profiling system of claim 8, wherein the polarization state is characterized by one or more Stokes parameters associated with one of the one or more the plurality of despeckled signals”.
Claim 10: None of the prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the inventor’s claim invention, “the spatial profiling system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine, based on the detected specularity, any one of speckle contrast, speckle granularity and speckle anisotropy.
Claim 11 is also objected to as being dependent on the objected base claim 10.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (572)272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
