Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/230,284

DEPTH ESTIMATION WITH SPARSE RANGE SENSOR DEPTH AND UNCERTAINTY PROJECTION

Non-Final OA §DP§Other
Filed
Jun 06, 2025
Priority
Jun 07, 2022 — continuation of 12/361,575
Examiner
NAWAZ, TALHA M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyota Motor Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allowance Rate
557 granted / 624 resolved
+29.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-0.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
644
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 624 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP §Other
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 . Priority This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical error present before “No-transitory computer-readable medium…” -Appropriate correction is required. 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. Instant Application (US19/230284). US12361575 Claim 1: A method comprising: generating, based on range sensor data, a representation of a scene of an environment; calculating, from the range sensor data, range sensor uncertainty of one or more points of the representation; generating depth data by projecting the representation onto a 2D image plane; generating blurred depth data by projecting the range sensor uncertainty onto the depth data; and deriving a depth map for an image of the scene based on the blurred depth data. Claim 1: A method comprising: generating, based on range sensor data, a point cloud representative of a scene of an environment; calculating, from the range sensor data, range sensor uncertainty of one or more points of the point cloud; generating blurred depth data by projecting the range sensor uncertainty onto the depth data; and deriving a depth map for an image of the scene based on the blurred depth data as an input into a depth model. Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12361575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a point cloud onto an image plane. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALHA M NAWAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5439. The examiner can normally be reached Flex, M-R 6:30am-3:30pm; F 8:30am-12:30pm. 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, Joe G Ustaris can be reached at 571-272-7383. 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. /TALHA M NAWAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12701238
VIDEO ASSET QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ENCODING OPTIMIZATION TO ACHIEVE TARGET QUALITY REQUIREMENT
4y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12700197
WEARABLE DEVICE FOR PROCESSING AUDIO SIGNAL BASED ON EXTERNAL OBJECT RECOGNIZED FROM IMAGE AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12695860
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SPECIFYING CONFIGURATIONS OF AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12695849
REDUCING LATENCY IN HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY FOR THE REMOTE OPERATION OF MACHINERY
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12664628
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SURROUND VIEW CAMERA SYSTEM WITH REDUCED MANHATTAN EFFECT DISTORTION
1y 12m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (-0.6%)
2y 2m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 624 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month