DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the response filed on 1/12/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 10-15 have been withdrawn.
The arguments presented have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive that the rejection of the claims should be withdrawn.
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority. All of the certified copies of the
priority documents have been received.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 11/16/2022 11/20/2024 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 and 16-20 are allowed.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “an object beam detection module”, “a light emitting module”, “receiving device”, “a transmit beam detection module” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “**” coupled with functional language “” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the at least one corresponding structure described in the specification for each of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“ “ :
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Mapping Notation
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
In this office action, following notations are being used to refer to the paragraph numbers or column number and lines of portions of the cited reference.
[0005] (Paragraph number [0005])
C5 (Column 5)
Pa5 (Page 5)
S5 (Section 5)
Furthermore, unless necessary to distinguish from other references in this action, “et al.” will be omitted when referring to the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Eichenholz et al. (US 20200076152 A1).
1. A receiving apparatus for Lidar installed in a moving device and separated from a transmitting apparatus for Lidar fixed to a fixed body, the receiving apparatus for Lidar comprising:
“[0021] FIG. 1 illustrates an example light detection and ranging (lidar) system 100. In particular embodiments, a lidar system 100 may be referred to as a laser ranging system, a laser radar system, a LIDAR system, a lidar sensor, or a laser detection and ranging (LADAR or ladar) system. In particular embodiments, a lidar system 100 may include a light source 110, mirror 115, scanner 120, receiver 140, or controller 150.”
“[0049] In particular embodiments, one or more lidar systems 100 may be integrated into a vehicle as part of an autonomous-vehicle driving system. As an example, a lidar system 100 may provide information about the surrounding environment to a driving system of an autonomous vehicle. An autonomous-vehicle driving system may be configured to guide the autonomous vehicle through an environment surrounding the vehicle and toward a destination. An autonomous-vehicle driving system may include one or more computing systems that receive information from a lidar system 100 about the surrounding environment, analyze the received information, and provide control signals to the vehicle's driving systems (e.g., steering wheel, accelerator, brake, or turn signal).”
The “fixed to a fixed body” is not given patentable weight as the body of the claim does not give meaning to the stated element.
an object beam detection module configured to detect an object beam which is a beam received after being transmitted from the transmitting apparatus for Lidar and reflected from a neighboring object of the moving device; and
“[0049] In particular embodiments, one or more lidar systems 100 may be integrated into a vehicle as part of an autonomous-vehicle driving system. As an example, a lidar system 100 may provide information about the surrounding environment to a driving system of an autonomous vehicle. An autonomous-vehicle driving system may be configured to guide the autonomous vehicle through an environment surrounding the vehicle and toward a destination. An autonomous-vehicle driving system may include one or more computing systems that receive information from a lidar system 100 about the surrounding environment, analyze the received information, and provide control signals to the vehicle's driving systems (e.g., steering wheel, accelerator, brake, or turn signal).”
One of ordinarily skilled in the art understand that the beam in the reference is reflected from the surrounding objects in order to detect such objects.
a reception controller configured to generate Lidar data based on information associated with the transmitted beam and a signal of the object beam.
“[0049]…An autonomous-vehicle driving system may include one or more computing systems that receive information from a lidar system 100 about the surrounding environment, analyze the received information, and provide control signals to the vehicle's driving systems (e.g., steering wheel, accelerator, brake, or turn signal).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parchami et al. (US 20200111358 A1) and Lipson et al. (US 20160327648 A1) disclose relevant art related to the subject matter of the present invention.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE N. NOH whose telephone number is (571) 270-0686. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAE N NOH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481