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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Application filed on 6/30/20. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
MPEP 2181(I) discloses that a claim limitation will be presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
the claim limitation uses the phrase “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder;
the phrase “means” or “step” or the substitute term is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word; and
the phrase “means” or “step” or the substitute term is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claims 1-13 disclose limitations which are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as said limitations meet said 3-prong analysis.
Regarding Claims 1-13, an emitter configured to emit is considered to read on Fig. 1 emitter 100; a detector configured to sample.., convert.., collect… is considered to read on Fig. 1 detector 130.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Said claim discloses a "computer program" (line 1). Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 16-17, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUBASINGHA et al (Pub. No: US 2019-0293768) in view of MATHY et al. (Pub. No: 2019-0113606).
As per Claim 1 SUBASINGHA discloses A sensing system for performing distance measurements (Fig. 1 system 100 [Abstract]); wherein the sensing system comprises (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8):
an emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation modulated at a known frequency (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8 emitter 102 different wavelengths given range [0030-0032]); a detector configured to: sample incident electromagnetic radiation at the known frequency (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8 detector 104, 124 [0030-0032] sampling [0037-0038] [0095]);
convert the sampled electromagnetic radiation into charge carriers (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8 components for generating signal [0037-0038]); wherein the sensing system further comprises a processor configured to determine a correction by applying a non-linear polynomial function to the electronic signal (Fig. 1, 6B, 8 processor 804 curve fitting application [0080])
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses collect the charge carriers in a storage component to produce an electronic signal (Figs. 1-2 sensor 104 collects and stores [0054-0055]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include collect the charge carriers in a storage component to produce an electronic signal as taught by MATHY into the system of SUBASINGHA because of the benefit taught by MATHY to include a time-of-flight distance measurement system that incorporates measurement and analysis of EM waves using high performance sensing devices which would benefit SUBASINGHA system which is concerned with accuracy in distance measurement and would benefit from the related beneficial advancements of MATHY to ensure better quality measurement outcomes.
As per Claim 3 SUBASINGHA discloses The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the electronic signal is indicative of a plurality of amplitudes of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 6B, 6D different values [0080] [0084-0085]); the sampled electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8 components for generating signal [0037-0038])
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses radiation at a plurality of different phases (Figs. 1-2, 5 [0067-0069] [0084]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 3)
As per Claim 4 SUBASINGHA discloses The sensing system of claim 1, wherein
the electronic signal is indicative of a difference between a first amplitude at a first phase of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 6D components for generating signal [0030-0032] [0037-0038] [0080] [0084-0085]) and a second amplitude of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 6B, 6D different values [0080] [0084-0085])
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses amplitude at a second phase of the radiation (Figs. 1-2, 5 [0054-0055] [0067-0069] [0084]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 4)
As per Claim 7 SUBASINGHA discloses The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the emitter is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation modulated at the known frequency (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6B, 8 emitter 102 different wavelengths given range [0030-0032])
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses emit continuous wave electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 1-2, 5 [0147]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 7)
As per Claim 13 SUBASINGHA discloses An electronic device (Fig. 8 autonomous vehicle incorporates Lidar [0017]) comprising SUBASINGHA in view of MATHY discloses the sensing system of claim 1 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 14 SUBASINGHA discloses A method of performing a distance measurement comprising (Figs. 1, 8 [Abstract]):
emitting electromagnetic radiation modulated at a known frequency (See said analysis for Claim 1); sampling incident electromagnetic radiation at the known frequency (See said analysis for Claim 1); converting the sampled electromagnetic radiation into charge carriers (See said analysis for Claim 1); determining a correction by applying a non-linear polynomial function to the electronic signal (See said analysis for Claim 1)
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses collecting the charge carriers to produce an electronic signal (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 16 SUBASINGHA discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the electronic signal is indicative of a plurality of amplitudes of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (See said analysis for Claim 3) the sampled electromagnetic radiation (See said analysis for Claim 3)
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses radiation at a plurality of different phases (See said analysis for Claim 3)
As per Claim 17 SUBASINGHA discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the electronic signal is indicative of a difference between a first amplitude at a first phase of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (See said analysis for Claim 4) and a second amplitude of the sampled electromagnetic radiation (See said analysis for Claim 4)
SUBASINGHA does not disclose but MATHY discloses amplitude at a second phase of the radiation (See said analysis for Claim 4)
As per Claim 24 SUBASINGHA discloses A computer program comprising computer readable instructions configured to cause a computer ([0105]) SUBASINGHA in view of MATHY discloses to carry out a method according to claim 14 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
Claims 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUBASINGHA et al (Pub. No: US 2019-0293768) in view of MATHY et al. (Pub. No: 2019-0113606) as applied in Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 16-17, 24, and further in view of YATES et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015-0234038).
As per Claim 6 SUBASINGHA discloses The sensing system of claim 1, wherein
SUBASINGHA and MATHY do not disclose but YATES discloses the storage component comprises an integration gate (Figs. 1-3, 5-7 discharged therefrom [Abstract] [0013]), and wherein the electronic signal is an integration gate signal that corresponds to an amount of charge that is stored in the integration gate (Figs. 1-3, 5-7 discharged therefrom [Abstract] [0013] gate 30 [0024] [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the storage component comprises an integration gate, and wherein the electronic signal is an integration gate signal that corresponds to an amount of charge that is stored in the integration gate as taught by YATES into the system of SUBASINGHA and MATHY because of the benefit taught by YATES to include a temporal integration gate to assist with better accuracy in distance measurements and analysis with imaging/cameras whereby SUBASINGHA and MATHY are directed towards achieving accuracy in distance measurements and would benefit naturally from the inclusion of further different/advanced techniques in carrying out measurement and analysis to achieve the desired results.
As per Claim 19 SUBASINGHA discloses The sensing system of claim 14, wherein
SUBASINGHA and MATHY do not disclose but YATES discloses collecting the charge carriers to produce an electronic signal comprises storing the charge carriers in an integration gate (Figs. 1-3, 5-7 condenser 13 [Abstract] [0013] [0026] [0044]), and wherein the electronic signal is an integration gate signal that corresponds to an amount of charge that is stored in the integration gate (Figs. 1-3, 5-7 [0013] gate 30 [0024-0026] [0033]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 6 applies equally to Claim 19)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8-12, 15, 18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 2, 5, 8-12, 15, 18 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 2 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 1, wherein a variable of the non-linear polynomial function is proportional to a non-linear offset to the electronic signal, the non-linear offset being at least partially dependent upon a non-linear charge transfer in the storage component" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to apply the non-linear polynomial function to the electronic signal only above a threshold value of the electronic signal, wherein the threshold value corresponds to an electronic signal value at which the collection of charge carriers in the storage component becomes non-linear" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the non-linear polynomial function is a second order polynomial function having the following form: y=p.sub.2.Math.x.sup.2+p.sub.1.Math.x+p.sub.0 where y is the correction, x is the electronic signal and p.sub.0, p.sub.1, and p.sub.2 are coefficients that are indicative of a non-linear offset experienced by the electronic signal" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the non-linear polynomial function is a second order polynomial function having the following form: y= p.sub.2.Math.x.sup.2+p.sub.1.Math.x+ (p.sub.0+xtalk.sub.i) where y is the correction, x is the electronic signal, p.sub.0, p.sub.1, and p.sub.2 are coefficients that are indicative of a non-linear offset experienced by the electronic signal, and xtalk.sub.i is indicative of a portion of the emitted electromagnetic radiation that is reflected by a component of the sensing system and/or components of an electronic device incorporating the sensing system" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 1, wherein the detector is configured to: sample a plurality of different phases of the incident electromagnetic radiation at the known frequency; convert the sampled plurality of different phases into charge carriers; and, collect the charge carriers in a plurality of storage components, wherein the processor is configured to determine a plurality of corrections by applying a plurality of non-linear polynomial functions to the plurality of electronic signals" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to apply the plurality of non-linear polynomial functions to the plurality of electronic signals only above a plurality of threshold values of the plurality of electronic signals" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The sensing system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to subtract a common-mode signal from the plurality of electronic signals before applying the plurality of non-linear polynomial functions to the plurality of electronic signals" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, wherein a variable of the non-linear polynomial function is proportional to a non-linear offset to the electronic signal, the non-linear offset being at least partially dependent upon a non-linear charge transfer associated with collecting the charge carriers" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 14, wherein the non-linear polynomial function is applied to the electronic signal only above a threshold value of the electronic signal, wherein the threshold value corresponds to an electronic signal value at which the collection of charge carriers becomes non-linear" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record SUBASINGHA et al (Pub. No: US 2019-0293768) for Claims 2, 5, 8-12, 15, 18 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. SUBASINGHA only discloses a sensing system for performing distance measurements wherein the sensing system comprises an emitter configured to emit electromagnetic radiation modulated at a known frequency. The prior art further discloses a detector configured to sample incident electromagnetic radiation at the known frequency and convert the sampled electromagnetic radiation into charge carriers, wherein the sensing system determines a correction by applying a non-linear polynomial function to the electronic signal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 8:30-5:00. 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 571-270-4688.
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 any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481