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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 12, 5-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Warke et al US 2017/329010A1.
Re claims 1 and 12, Warke disclose a laser detection and ranging (LiDAR) device (abstract), comprising: a transceiver assembly adapted to steer an incoming laser signal comprising a pulse-train of successive laser pulses onto a target, wherein each pulse has a rank in the pulse-train, Wherein each pulse is generated to have an optical energy, wherein the optical energy of a majority of the pulses of the pulse-train has substantially a same magnitude, and the optical energy of a trigger pulse in the pulse-train is higher than the optical energy of the majority of the pulses by a factor higher than 2 (figure 7, pulse 702 compare to 704, 712, and 706), wherein the trigger pulse has a predefined rank in the pulse-train, wherein the transceiver assembly is further configured to receive a return laser signal, which is a reflection of the incoming laser signal on the target (par 14, 19, and 31), the LiDAR device further comprising:
an optical detector adapted to acquire a detection signal by measuring an optical power of the return laser signal over the time (par. 19), a processing module adapted to perform a coarse detection step, comprising: detecting that a measured optical power of the detection signal overcomes a predefined amplitude threshold at a trigger time (fig 7, ref 710), and recording the trigger time, wherein the processing module is further adapted to perform a fine detection step, comprising:
selecting a time-window with reference to the trigger time, and identifying a reflected pulse-train in the detection signal within the time window, by identifying that the trigger time corresponds to a detection time of a reflection of the trigger pulse (par 31).
Warke shows the trigger pulse being much larger than the other pulses in the pulse train (fig 7, which appears to read on the claimed “by a factor higher than 2”). However, even if figure is not read to scale, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to select a defined value for the “increased intensity” (par 31) to realize the most accurate detection or SNR, which can be more than a factor of 2.
Regarding claims 5 and 6. Warke is silent about the trigger pulse is above 1400 nm in the spectral domain and/or the majority of the pulses of the pulse-train are below 1400 nm in the spectral domain. However, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to select such spectral values, as doing so would represent a routine design choice to optimize performance for a particular applications, such as adapting to specific operation environments or mitigating atmospheric attenuations effects.
Regarding claims 7 and 8. Warke is silent about the predefined rank is the last rank, and the time-window ends after said trigger time or the predefined rank is the first rank, and the time-window starts from said trigger time. However, it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to select such parameters, as doing so would represent a routine design choice to optimize performance for a particular applications.
16. The LiDAR device of claim 12, wherein the optical energy of the majority of the pulses is substantially equal to 5.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, 13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Warke et al US 2017/329010A1 in view of Kim et al US 2015/109603A1.
Re claim 2. Claim 2 defines a multi-spectral laser signal and that the pulses offer different wavelengths. Warke is silent about different wavelengths. In order to look for further improvement for rejecting signals from other devices, the skilled man will take into consideration Kim, exactly dealing with this problem (Kim, par.54 and 58 ) as a solution. It would have been obvious to include the teaching of Kim for even better SNR.
3. The LiDAR device according to claim 2, wherein the pulse bandwidth of the trigger pulse is broader than the pulse bandwidth of the majority of the pulses (Warke figure 7).
4. The LiDAR device according to claim 1, Warke is silent regarding the trigger pulse is spectrally centered on a wavelength which propagates through atmosphere with low attenuation. However, it would have been obvious for selecting a wavelength suitable for the area and the atmospherical characteristics for best result and SNR.
9. The A-LiDAR device according to claim 1, wherein the pulse train further comprises a signature pulse having another predefined rank, the trigger pulse and the signature pulse being separated by a defined delay, wherein the optical energy of the signature pulse is also higher than the optical energy of the majority of the pulses, and wherein the coarse detection step further comprises: detecting a second overcome of the predefined amplitude threshold, at the defined delay from the trigger pulse, prior to perform the fine detection step (the combination of Warke and Kim teaches the pulse signatures according to different wavelength, Amplitude and timing( Kim 54, 58, Warke Fig 7 par 31).
10. The LiDAR device according to claim 9, wherein the transceiver assembly is further configured to select a shape of the pulse-train, wherein the shape a trigger pulse is comprised between: a first shape, wherein the trigger pulse is a single pulse of the pulse-train which has an optical energy higher than the optical energy of the rest of the pulses, a second shape, wherein the pulse train comprises both the trigger pulse and the signature pulse, wherein the transceiver assembly is further configured to select the second shape as a response of detecting that signal—noise ratio is higher than a predefined ratio threshold,
11. The LiDAR device according to claim 9, wherein the predefined rank is the first rank, and the time-window starts from said trigger time, and wherein the rank of the signature pulse is the last rank. (see rejection of claims 7 and 8)
13. The LiDAR device according to claim 1, wherein the transceiver assembly comprises a laser emitting module configured to generate the incoming laser signal (Warke par 19).
17. The LiDAR device according to claim 2, wherein the trigger pulse is spectrally centered on a wavelength which propagates through atmosphere with low attenuation. (see rejection of claim 4 above)
18. The LiDAR device according to claim 3, wherein the trigger pulse is spectrally centered on a wavelength which propagates through atmosphere with low attenuation. (see rejection of claim 4 above)
19. The LiDAR device according to claim 2, wherein the trigger pulse is above 1400 nm in the spectral domain. (see rejection of claims 5-6 above)
20. The LiDAR device according to claim 3, wherein the trigger pulse is above 1400 nm in the spectral domain. (see rejection of claims 5-6 above)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAM ALSOMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-6970. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645