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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/17/2022 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wike, Jr. et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0245125) in view of Mimeault et al (CA 2839194 A1) and Skultety-Betz et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0192227)
With respect to claim 1, Wike Jr, et al disclose: A lidar trigger device [ taught by figure 4A; paragraph [0035] ], comprising: a controller having a processor and memory, the memory storing computer instructions [ paragraph [0035] states, “…In both embodiments (shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B), the trigger monitoring computing device 105 may comprise a processor (not shown), a memory (not shown)…” ]; a wireless communications device [ paragraph [0035] states, “…In the embodiment shown in FIG. 4A, the trigger monitoring computing device may also comprise or be connected to a network interface 405 (e.g., a wireless Ethernet bridge connected to an antenna 450) for communicating with other entities via one or more wired or wireless communications networks…” ]; a lidar unit having a light emitter and light detector [ paragraph [0035] states, “…trigger (e.g., LIDAR) connections 455…” ]; an electronic display [ paragraph [0035] teaches a diagnostic interface (465) ]; and a housing that surrounds the controller, the wireless communications device, the lidar unit, and the electronic display [ paragraph [0035] states, “….Via some of these elements, the environment within the control housing can be maintained for optimal operating conditions…” and figure 2C schematically shows the trigger monitoring computing device (105) in a housing ], wherein, when the computer instructions are executed by the processor, the lidar trigger device is configured to: cause light to be transmitted from the light emitter of the lidar unit; cause reflected light that is received at the light detector to be processed [ paragraph [0042] states, “…Operatively, the trigger monitoring computing device 105, via the LIDAR, continuously monitors the distance to a fixed point or area within the violation zone 130 (Block 700). When the LIDAR's beam is unobstructed, the LIDAR will provide a constant range, such as determining the distance to be 200 feet every five milliseconds. In contrast, when a car enters the beam of the LIDAR, the trigger monitoring computing device 105 will determine the distance to be a distance less than the constant range, e.g., 200 feet…” ]; determine whether the lidar unit was triggered based on processing of the reflected light ; in response to determining that the lidar unit was triggered, generate a trigger reporting message; and send the trigger reporting message to a remote device via the wireless communications device [ paragraph [0042] states, “…If the range is determined to be less than 200 feet (accounting for a tolerance, if desired), the trigger monitoring computing device 105 generates and transmits (e.g., using the wireless Ethernet bridge) an "enter message" to the control computing device 300 (Block 705)…” ].
Claim 1 differs from Wike Jr, et al by explicitly reciting the LIDAR trigger (455) include an emitter and detector.
Figure 4 of Mimeault et al teaches that LIDAR devices were known before the effective filing date of the present application to have included an emitter (42) and detector (44) in a traffic monitoring application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of using an emitter and detector in the system of Wike, Jr. et al because Mimeault et al taught these elements were needed in a LIDAR to monitor traffic.
Claim 1 further differs from Wike Jr. et al et al by explicitly reciting an electronic display.
Figure 1 of Skultety-Betz et al teaches that laser distance measuring devices were known before the effective filing date of the present application to have included a display (16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a display, as taught by Skultety-Betz et al, to the LIDAR trigger disclosed by Mineault et al, when seeking to meet the function of providing a diagnostic interface, as needed in the device of Mineault et al.
Claim 11 is rejected by the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 2 adds a printed circuit board to the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 1.
Skultety-Betz et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have use a printed circuit board (18) to facilitate the interconnection of laser range finding elements located in a housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a printed circuit board in the construction of the device produced by the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 1, when seeking to facilitate the interconnection of elements.
Claim 12 is rejected by the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 2.
Paragraph [0035] of Wike, Jr. et al states, “…the trigger monitoring computing device may also comprise or be connected to a network interface 405 (e.g., a wireless Ethernet bridge connected to an antenna 450) for communicating with other entities via one or more wired or wireless communications networks…” ; thus, rendering claims 3 and 13 obvious for the reasons applied to claims 1 and 11.
Claim 4 differs from the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 1, by adding a global navigation satellite system to the housing.
Paragraph [0084] of Mimeault et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used a global positioning system (GPS) unit in the housing of a traffic monitoring system in order to provided real time location information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a GPS unit to the system of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 1, when seeking to provide real time location data to the control computing device (300).
Claim 14 is rejected by the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claim 4.
Paragraph [0024] of Skultey-Betz et al states, “…To measure a distance of laser distance-measuring device 10 from a remote object, during operation 1o of laser distance-measuring device 10, a transmitted measurement signal in the form of a light beam is sent from transmitter unit 20 via transmission optics 26 in a beam direction 24 oriented parallel to printed circuit board 18. The transmitted measurement signal reflected by a surface of the remote object is received as a received measurement signal by receiver unit 22 via receiving optics 28. The distance in question may be ascertained by comparing the transmitted measurement signal with the received measurement signal…”.
Therefore, claims 5 and 15 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Skultety-Betz et al taught that using a single beam to make a range measurement known before the effective filing date of the present application, thus being a reasonably expected modification of the combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11.
Paragraph [0041] of Wike, Jr. et al states, “… Because LIDAR is a sensing technology that measures properties of scattered light to find ranges or other information, it can therefore be used to determine the distance to an object or surface as indicated above. If the distance to the fixed point in the violation zone 130 is, for example, 200 feet, the LIDAR measurement will be less than 200 feet when a vehicle is in the path of the beam of the LIDAR (e.g., in the violation zone 130). Thus, by continuously measuring the distance to the fixed point in the violation zone 130, the trigger monitoring computing device 105 can determine when vehicles enter and exit the violation zone 130…”.
The text cited above teaches the subject matter of claims 6, 7, 16 and 17.
Therefore, claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected by combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11.
Paragraph [0042] of Wike, Jr. et al states, “…In contrast, when a car enters the beam of the LIDAR, the trigger monitoring computing device 105 will determine the distance to be a distance less than the constant range, e.g., 200 feet. If the range is determined to be less than 200 feet (accounting for a tolerance, if desired), the trigger monitoring computing device 105 generates and transmits (e.g., using the wireless Ethernet bridge) an "enter message" to the control computing device 300 (Block 705). The enter message provides an indication to the control computing device 300 that (a) a vehicle has entered the violation zone 130 and (b) the time the vehicle entered the violation zone 130. The time the vehicle enters (or exits) the violation zone 130 can be established by regularly synchronizing the various computing devices via NTP so that they all have the same corresponding network time…”.
The text cited above teaches the subject matter of claims 8-10 and 18-20.
Therefore, claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected by combination of Wike, Jr. et al, Mimeault et al and Skultety-Betz et al, as applied to claims 1 and 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645