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 .
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 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11327161. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The instant claims recite method equivalents of the Patent claims’ apparatuses. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that a method claim set and corresponding apparatus claim set are not patentably distinct when they recite the same or nearly the same limitations with the only difference therebetween being recited method steps versus those of an apparatus. The claim limitations are further not patentably distinct such that if prior art is found for one of the method or the apparatus, the prior art would reasonably be applicable to the other. See the following prior art rejection for the instant claims, which would need not be changed to reasonably encompass the teaching of the Patent claims. The instant claim 1, for instance, recites “a method for controlling a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system” while corresponding claim 1 of the Patent recites “a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system”, but both proceed to recite limitations with the same metes and bounds in the body of the claims. Thus, the instant claimed invention is not patentably distinct from that of the Patent, as each of the independent and dependent claims of one line up to match the limitations of the other using nearly the same or strikingly similar language. Further, despite the method and apparatus differences, the scope of the instantly claimed invention is found within the scope of the Patent claimed invention. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that while a slight modification of the instant claimed invention to include writing the Patent claimed invention as a method, it follows that the claimed inventions are not patentably distinct.
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 9 and 19 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.
Claims 9 and 19 require sampling from the returned optical signal a fourth set of symbols and performing an interpolation on the fourth set of symbols to generate the second of symbols. These limitations render the claims indefinite for the following reasons:
No third set of symbols has been recited in the claims at issue nor in the claims on which they depend. Therefore, it is unclear how a fourth set of symbols is generated without first generating a third set of symbols.
The independent claims on which the claims at issue depend require sampling based on the returned optical signal a second set of symbols. The claims at issue require that the second set of symbols are the product of interpolation of the fourth set of symbols. Thus, it is unclear how all of the first, second, non-recited third, and fourth signals are related to one another and how they tie into the limitations of the independent claims.
For purposes of examination, the claims at issue will be interpreted as an interpolation of a set of symbols yielding a subsequent set of symbols.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 10-13, 15-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch (WO 2018/144853 A1) in view of Lee (US 2019/0310350).
1 and 12 mutatis mutandis: Crouch teaches a method for controlling a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system including one or more processors, the method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a code that has a first set of symbols having a first number of symbols [0044 teaches coded transmitted and received signals with M blocks (set of symbols) of N symbols per block (number of symbols)];
transmitting, by the one or more processors to an environment, an optical signal generated based on the code [0044 teaches coded transmitted and received signals; 0054-56 teaches coded transmission signals], wherein the first set of symbols are transmitted as part of the optical signal in a first duration [0054-56 teach a coded transmission signal with a duration relating to the symbol set];
in response to transmitting the optical signal, receiving, by the one or more processors, a returned optical signal that is reflected from an object in the environment [0069 teaches a received, return signal];
determining, by the one or more processors, a second number of symbols to be sampled [0069 teaches a received, return signal with code of a certain duration based on a symbol set (M) and symbol numbers (N)];
sampling, by the one or more processors based on the returned optical signal, a second set of symbols in a second duration, wherein the second set of symbols have the second number of symbols [0055 teaches a received, return signal is sampled based on number of symbols per signal]; and
determining, by the one or more processors based on the second set of symbols, a range to the object [0041, 0044 teach that range is determined based on the received, return signal].
Crouch explicitly lacks, but Lee teaches the second number of symbols being different than the first number of symbols [0057 teaches codes indicating symbols having different lengths].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Crouch with the lidar system including varying symbol code lengths disclosed in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because in allowing for different code symbol lengths, a probability distribution concentration can be completed, for instance, indicating a data representation of range values within an environment and thus accuracy of range determination.
Regarding claim 12, Crouch additionally teaches a method for controlling a vehicle using a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system [0088 teaches a vehicle implementing the disclosed lidar system] and controlling, by the one or more processors, operation of the vehicle using the range to the object [0088 teaches moving the vehicle to avoid a collision with an object based on range to the object].
2, 13 mutatis mutandis: Crouch teaches a length of the second duration is the same as or substantially similar to a length of the first duration [at least 0044 and 0054-56 teach that the durations of the transmitted and received, returned signals are the same or similar].
4, 15 mutatis mutandis: Crouch teaches that the first and second number of symbols are the same [such as taught by 0044]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that in the instance where the number of symbols on coded transmission and reception beams were different and were desired to be the same, padding the code would allow for adding any number of symbols. Achieving a matching number of symbols of code allows for a greater certainty that the transmitted signal corresponds to the received signal for purposes of range determination, for instance. Such is why the disclosure of Crouch implements the same number of transmission and reception symbols of code.
5, 16 mutatis mutandis: Crouch does not explicitly teach inserting a symbol(s) such that the inserted symbol(s) matches an adjacent symbol, but Crouch does teach at 0044 binary code starting with 00011010 and on, which has at least two different consecutive binary symbols. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that including or inserting (binary) symbols with matching adjacent symbols is known to yield simplicity and efficiency, as it allows for ease of processing, ease and quick storage, and quick data transmission.
10, 20 mutatis mutandis: Crouch teaches generating, based on the returned optical signal, an electrical signal; and determining the range to the object based on a Fourier Transform of the electrical signal [claim 4 teaches determining a Fourier transform of an electrical signal and determining range thereof].
11: Crouch teaches providing operation signals to a vehicle control system of a vehicle such that the vehicle control system controls the vehicle using the range to the object [0088 teaches moving a vehicle to avoid a collision with an object based on range to the object].
Claim(s) 3, 6-9, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch (WO 2018/144853 A1) in view of Lee (US 2019/0310350) and further in view of Eshraghi (US 9791551).
3, 14 mutatis mutandis: Crouch explicitly lacks, but Eshraghi teaches a second set of symbols are sampled based on a first clock signal, and the method further comprising: adjusting the first clock signal to generate a second clock signal based on which another set of symbols are to be transmitted, wherein the another set of symbols have the first number of symbols [col 11, lines 51-67 and col 12, lines 4-25 teach modulation of a sample rate clock and a chip rate clock].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Crouch with the clock sampling of Eshraghi with a reasonable expectation of success because modulating clock sampling allows for determining corresponding transmitted and received codes.
7, 8, 18 mutatis mutandis: Crouch explicitly lacks, but Eshraghi teaches up-sampling the code to generate a sample signal [col 29, lines 18-21 teaches up-sampling]; and filtering (using a low-pass digital filter as in claims 8 and 18) the sample signal to generate a smoothed signal [col 12, lines 37-49 teaches low-pass filtering a sampled signal to produce a smoothed signal].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Crouch with the up-sampling and smoothing of signals of Eshraghi with a reasonable expectation of success because such allow for additional data to be included and mitigating noise to reveal true signal behavior, both in order to yield more accurate and clear results.
6, 17 mutatis mutandis: Crouch explicitly lacks, but Eshraghi teaches performing an interpolation on the first set of symbols to generate a third set of symbols in the code, such that the code has the second number of symbols [at least col 30, lines 8-30 teach interpolating to achieve a sample sequence shift, providing a continuous range of delay adjustment being available in steps of one chip, one sample, and a fraction of a sample].
9, 19 mutatis mutandis: Crouch explicitly lacks, but Eshraghi teaches sampling, from the returned optical signal, a fourth set of symbols; and performing an interpolation on the fourth set of symbols to generate the second set of symbols [at least col 30, lines 8-30 teach interpolating to achieve a sample sequence shift, providing a continuous range of delay adjustment being available in steps of one chip, one sample, and a fraction of a sample].
Regarding claims 6, 9, 17, 19: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lidar system disclosed in Crouch with the interpolation of Eshraghi with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows for reconstructing a signal from its discrete samples, i.e. it allows for reducing or increasing a number of samples in a signal, enabling efficient data processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645