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 . This is the first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how a controller can assign a field of view of the detector as a void and further how the controller sets the light source/ detector to “ignore” photons. The specification fails to provide any guidance beyond noting that “the controller 108 can create and maintain a virtual void 214 around the location of the sun 212 to prevent the sun's photons from interfering with the detection of downrange targets 104”. Is the controller implementing a scanning “dead zone” with the light source to prevent emission of photons to a specific region of the detector field of view? Is the controller setting the gain of pixels to zero in a specific region of the detector field of view?
For the purposes of examination, “ignoring photons passing through the assigned void” will be interpreted as setting the gain to zero in a specific region of the detector field of view.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification as originally filed, fails to provide description regarding the limitation “assigning, with the controller, a region of a field of view of the detector as void; and ignoring photons passing through the assigned void”. There is no disclosure on what algorithm, structure or standard there are to perform the selected function.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to claim dependency.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keliaf et.al., US 20190271767 A1, (“Keliaf”).
Regarding claim 1, Keliaf discloses a method comprising ([0256]): connecting a controller to a detector and a light source ([0066],[0264] Processor 118 may have access to various types of controls for altering an amount of light available to certain regions of sensor 116 or for changing a sensitivity level of detection elements in certain areas of the sensor) ; identifying, with the controller, a direction of view for the detector; assigning, with the controller, a region of a field of view of the detector as void ( [0263], [0273] zero the gain of one or more detection elements, [0275] For example, in addition to detecting sources of ambient light, such as street lights, traffic lights, buildings, etc., …such fixed sources of light may be predicted to occur at certain regions within an FOV based on location information. Accordingly, detection element sensitivities may be adjusted even in the absence of a confirmed detection of such light sources. That is, sensitivities of one or more detection elements may be altered in expectation of features associated with an upcoming environment determined based on navigation instructions and map data, etc.); and ignoring photons passing through the assigned void ([0272] Adjustment of the sensitivity may be based on observed or predicted reflectivity levels… High reflectivity levels and/or very bright ambient light may trigger the processor to lower the amplification of one or more detection elements, or even to zero the gain of one or more detection elements).
Regarding claim 2, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the void corresponds with a detected location of the sun ([0261] – [0262], [0275]).
Regarding claim 6, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the controller assigns a plurality of voids and ignores photons passing through any of the plurality of voids ([0285] detection elements mapped to detector regions where amplification is lowered, [0273] note gain is zeroed, [0278] zero gain being applied to one or more detection elements or other components, such that no appreciable signals are made available from the relevant detection elements or areas of sensor 116).
Regarding claim 7, Keliaf, as modified by Sasaki teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the void is virtual and static relative to movement of the detector ([0240] – [0241].
Regarding claim 8, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector accepts photons passing outside the void ([0285] note detection of photons in other portions in the fov).
Regarding claim 9, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the controller assigns a shape and size to cover an object positioned downrange from the detector ([0265] shutter as cover).
Regarding claim 10, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector identifies at least one downrange target while ignoring photons passing through the assigned void ([0263], [0274]- [0275]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et.al., US 20210239809 A1, (“Jang”).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses a method ([0076]) comprising: positioning a detector in line with a light source ([0061] Lidar 210, Figure 7A, Figure 7B), the detector and light source each connected to a controller ( [0064] controller [0076] method performed with controller ); identifying, with the controller, a direction of view for the detector ([0030]); assigning, with the controller, a region of a field of view of the detector as void ([0031] region of interest as void); and processing, with the controller, photons passing through the assigned void differently than photons arriving at the detector without passing through the void ([0039] note filter of region of interest).
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the controller applies a filter to photons passing through the void (Jang [0039] note filter of region of interest).
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the controller ignores less than all the photons passing through the void ([0032] remove only the distinguished noise points).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keliaf in view of Sasaki et.al., US 20160377707 A1, (“Sasaki”).
Regarding claim 3, Keliaf discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the void corresponds with a […] location of the sun ([0261] – [0262], [0275]).
Keliaf fails to teach wherein the void corresponds with a calculated location of the sun.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the void corresponds with a calculated location of the sun ([0030] – [ 0032] The position data of the sun is calculated by the sun position calculating unit 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Keliaf to include the method of calculating the position of the sun as taught by Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of enhancing the accuracy of the positioning of the sun, by calculating the position using known orbital celestial and astronomical information (See Sasaki – [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Keliaf, as modified by Sasaki above teaches, the method of claim 3, wherein the location of the sun is calculated from a global position of the detector (Sasaki [0030] – [ 0032]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keliaf in view of Sasaki, further in view of Dittmer et.al., US 20190186931 A1, (“Dittmer”).
Regarding claim 5, Keliaf, as modified by Sasaki teaches the method of claim 4.
Keliaf, as modified by Sasaki, fail to teach wherein the location of the sun is calculated from the direction of view of the detector and the global position of the detector.
However, Dittmer teaches wherein the location of the sun is calculated from the direction of view of the detector and the global position of the detector ([0027] Given the sun's position over the geographic area at the given time, the computing system could then predict the sun's position relative to the image capture device's field of view if the vehicle is to travel in a given location within the geographic area at the given time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the controller of Dittmer to include the method of calculating the position of the sun as taught by Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of enhancing the accuracy of the positioning of the sun, by calculating the position using the known field of view of the detector and the gps data for that position.
Claims 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Sasaki et.al., US20160377707A1, (“Sasaki”).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches the method of claim 11.
Jang fails to teach wherein the controller identifies the direction of view of the detector with an inertial measurement unit connected to the controller.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the controller identifies the direction of view of the detector with an inertial measurement unit connected to the controller ([0020] – [0023], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Jang ([0064]) to include an inertial measurement unit to determine slight changes in the attitude of the detector/ light source with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of enhancing the accuracy and reliability of the positioning, ensuring continuous tracking of the detector/light source position and orientation.
Regarding claim 15, Jang, as modified by Sasaki, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the controller identifies the direction of view of the detector with a positioning module connected to the controller (Jang [0035] GPS as positioning module).
Regarding claim 17, Jang, as modified by Sasaki, above teaches the method of claim 11.
Jang fails to teach wherein the controller derives an algorithm to set a shape, size, and position of the void.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the controller derives an algorithm to set a shape, size, and position of the void ([0030] – [0034] Figure 3, processing procedure as algorithm, note restriction in scanning processing, [0033] point cloud data will not be obtained from within the set area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Jang ([0064]) to perform the algorithm of Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of isolating the point cloud data from a set area of known interference, thus improving the final detection data.
Regarding claim 19, Jang, as modified by Sasaki above teaches the method of claim 17.
Jang fails to teach wherein the algorithm is derived from logged past detection of photons from a downrange source.
Sasaki teaches wherein the algorithm is derived from logged past detection of photons from a downrange source ([0032] – [0033] brightness value of the sun used to determine if void is applied).
Regarding claim 20, Jang, as modified by Sasaki above teaches the method of claim 19.
Jang fails to teach wherein the downrange source is the sun.
However, Sasaki teaches wherein the downrange source is the sun ([0032] – [0033] brightness value of the sun used to determine if void is applied).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, in view of Sasaki, further in view of Gist et.al., US 20200142426 A1, (“Gist”).
Regarding claim 16, Jang, as modified by Sasaki teaches the method of claim 15.
Jang, as modified by Sasaki fail to teach wherein the inertial measurement unit, positioning module, detector, and light source are each physically packaged together on a common substrate.
However, Gist teaches wherein the inertial measurement unit, positioning module, detector, and light source are each physically packaged together on a common substrate ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified sensor suite of Jang to integrate the sensors on an isolated circuit board with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of integrating multiple components one a single unit, simplifying the design and reducing the size of the required sensor suite.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, in view of Sasaki, further in view of O’Keeffe, US 20180059248 A1, (“O’Keeffe”).
Regarding claim 18, Jang, as modified by Sasaki teach the method of claim 17.
Jang, as modified by Sasaki fail to teach wherein the algorithm is derived from past logged assignment of voids.
However, O’Keeffe teaches wherein the algorithm is derived from past logged assignment of voids ([0240] keep out region as void, note stored masking values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the controller of Jang ([0064]) to set new void regions based on previously set voids as taught by O’Keeffe with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predicable result of dynamically setting the voids without further knowledge of detector position (See O’Keeffe – [0240]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA MARIA BACA whose telephone number is (703)756-1255. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm EST.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ANDREA MARIA BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645