DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 19 and 20 only have 2 basic limitations – an “electronic circuit” and “One or more processors”. There is no statement of a power supply, transmitting element, receiving element, timing mechanism, or feedback/analytical device necessary to perform detection (see “detected waveform”, or measurement (see “measured level” and “measured pulse period”), or a database or details regarding any sort of “modeled reference level” or “signal decay model”. As such, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, or see how the black box claim with minimal elements could perform the steps prescribed. Dependent claims 2-18 fail to remedy these issues. Correction is required.
Claims 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent claims 1, 19 and 20 only have 2 basic limitations – an “electronic circuit” and “One or more processors”. There is no statement of a power supply, transmitting element, receiving element, timing mechanism, or feedback/analytical device necessary to perform detection (see “detected waveform”, or measurement (see “measured level” and “measured pulse period”), or a database or details regarding any sort of “modeled reference level” or “signal decay model”. As such, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, or see how the black box claim with minimal elements could perform the steps prescribed. Dependent claims 2-18 fail to remedy these issues. Correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadugan (US 2023/0375678) in view of Anderson (US 2017/0268993).
Regarding Claim 1, Cadugan teaches a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer instructions for: an electronic circuit configured to provide a detected waveform including a first detected waveform portion corresponding to a first output light pulse triggered at a first trigger time [0009; 0011; 0039; 0053] and a second detected waveform portion corresponding to a second output light pulse triggered at a second trigger time [0047; 0054] (millions of pulses would include a first pulse and any number of second pulses, at trigger times after the first pulse); and one or more processors configured to [0003; 0013; 0053] determine a pulse metric [0003; 0007] associated with the …modeled reference level determined based on a signal decay model [0009; 0073-76] and a measured pulse period [0037-39; 0052-53; 0055; 0058]. Cadugan does not explicitly teach – but Anderson does teach second output light pulse including by being configured to determine a difference between a measured level on the second detected waveform portion and a… reference level [0026; 0029-30; 0038] . It would have been obvious to modify the system, method and computer readable medium of to include using the difference between the second pulse and the reference model based on the pulse length to be used to calculate a backscatter coefficient and an optical extinction coefficient.
Regarding Claim 2, Cadugan also teaches wherein the pulse metric is associated with pulse energy [0009; 0011; 0043; 0048; 0055; 0062; 0097].
Regarding Claim 3, Cadugan also teaches wherein the electronic circuit is configured to provide the detected waveform including by being configured to integrate a pulsed signal associated with the first output light pulse and the second output light pulse [0009; 0011; 0043; 0048; 0055; 0062; 0097].
Regarding Claim 4, Cadugan does not explicitly teach – but Anderson does teach wherein the electronic circuit is configured to provide the detected waveform including by being configured to apply one or more filters to an integrated pulsed signal [0020; 0023-24]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Cadugan to include one or more filters so that the power of the resulting signal can be measured, and to determine both a backscatter coefficient and an optical extinction coefficient.
Regarding Claim 6, Cadugan also teaches wherein the electronic circuit is configured to provide the detected waveform including by being configured to amplify [0020; 0050-53; 0068] - but does not explicitly teach (amplify) an integrated and filtered pulsed signal. Anderson teaches an integrated and filtered pulsed signal [0020; 0023-24]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Cadugan to include one or more filters so that the power of the resulting signal can be measured, and to determine both a backscatter coefficient and an optical extinction coefficient.
Regarding Claim 7, Cadugan also teaches wherein the first detected waveform portion and the second detected waveform portion are periodic components of the detected waveform [0037-39; 0052-53; 0055; 0058; 0062; 0068; 0097]
Regarding Claim 8, Cadugan also teaches wherein the first output light pulse and the second output light pulse are generated by a light source of a lidar system [0009; 0011; 0043; 0048; 0055; 0062; 0097]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0026; 0029-30; 0038].
Regarding Claim 9, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the measured level on the second detected waveform portion including by being configured to receive a sampled value of the detected waveform associated with the second trigger time [0039; 0047; 0055]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0022; 0026; 0030; 0040].
Regarding Claim 10, Cadugan teaches wherein the measured level on the second detected waveform portion is associated with a peak of the second detected waveform portion [0003; 0063] Anderson additionally teaches wherein the measured level on the second detected waveform portion is associated with a peak of the second detected waveform portion [0026; 0029-30; 0038].
Regarding Claim 11, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the modeled reference level including by being configured to map the measured pulse period to a signal decay value [0009; 0011; 0039; 0048; 0055; 0062]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0026; 0029-30; 0038].
Regarding Claim 13, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the modeled reference level including by being configured to receive a sampled value of the detected waveform associated with the first trigger time [0039; 0047; 0055]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0022; 0026; 0030; 0040].
Regarding Claim 14, Cadugan also teaches wherein the sampled value of the detected waveform associated with the first trigger time is associated with a peak of the first detected waveform portion [0003; 0017; 0039; 0047; 0055; 0063]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0022; 0026; 0030; 0040].
Regarding Claim 15, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the modeled reference level including by being configured to multiply the signal decay value with the received sampled value [0003; 0017; 0039; 0047; 0055; 0063]. Anderson additionally teaches this limitation in [0022; 0026; 0030; 0040].
Regarding Claim 16, Cadugan also teaches wherein the measured pulse period corresponds to a time difference between the first trigger time and the second trigger time [0037-39; 0052-53; 0055; 0058
Regarding Claim 17, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calibrate the signal decay model [0039; 0041; 0047; 0053; 0055; 0063].
Regarding Claim 18, Cadugan also teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the measured level on the second detected waveform portion including by being configured to receive a value of the detected waveform that has been sampled a specified delay after the second trigger time [0009; 0032-33; 0092-93; 0096].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadugan (US 2023/0375678) in view of Anderson (US 2017/0268993), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Ferreira (US 2020/0284883).
Regarding Claim 5, Cadugan does not explicitly teach – but Ferreira does teach wherein the one or more filters includes a low-pass filter [0955-57]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Cadugan to include a low pass filter in order to so that the power of the resulting signal can be measured, and to determine both a backscatter coefficient and an optical extinction coefficient.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadugan (US 2023/0375678) in view of Anderson (US 2017/0268993), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dykstra (US 2018/0072391)
Regarding Claim 12, Cadugan does not explicitly teach – but Dykstra does teach wherein the signal decay value is an output of a lookup table representing the signal decay model [0028]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Cadugan to use a signal decay model for a lookup table to reduce processing time, as the use of lookup tables is common in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645