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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of claims 9 and 19 has been withdrawn in response to amendment.
Applicant presents that Crouch fails to disclose the amended limitation that at least one symbol of the first set of symbols represents a phase of a pulse. However, Crouch teaches in at least paragraphs 0041-0042, a phase-encoded signal, wherein at least one symbol of the code represents a phase value of a pulse. Crouch describes binary phase encoding and that the number of phase pulses during the time of the transmitted signal is the number of symbols and represents the length of the encoding. Further, that in binary encoding, there are two phase values and the phase of the shortest interval can be considered a 0 for one value and 1 for the other, thus the symbol is one bit. Crouch additionally describes multiphase encoding.
Applicant presents that Crouch also fails to disclose generating, by the one or more processors, an optical signal based on the digital code. However, Crouch teaches at fig. 3A and in paragraphs 0057, and 0059-0061, that an optical signal is generated based on the digital code. Crouch describes that a digital code module (372) in the processing system (350) sends an electric signal that indicates a digital code of symbols to be imposed as phase changes on the optical carrier, resulting in the transmission of an optical signal.
The non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is overcome by claim amendments and has been withdrawn.
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 digital 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)], wherein at least one symbol of the first set of symbols represents a phase of a pulse [0041-0042 teach a phase-encoded signal, wherein at least one symbol of the code represents a phase value of a pulse];
generating, by the one or more processors, an optical signal based on the digital code [at least 0057, 0059-0061, and fig. 3A teach that the digital code affects generation of an optical signal];
transmitting, by the one or more processors to an environment, the optical signal [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 digital code would allow for adding any number of symbols. Achieving a matching number of symbols of digital 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 digital 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 digital code, such that the digital 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights