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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“An evaluation device configured to ascertain a speed of a detected object . . .” in claims 11-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 16 and 17 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.
As for claim 16, the claim recites “wherein a minimum error square is used for matching between measurement values”. However, this limitation is unclear, as it is not clear what is meant by “measurement values”. Are these measurement values the arrival times of the receive signals detected by the detector device? Are these measurement values the speed of the detected object ascertained from the arrival times? Are they something else? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the measurement values to be associated with the received signals set forth in claim 11.
As for claim 17, the claim recites “wherein a further object can be detected from a goodness of fit of a mathematical function between the measurement values”. However, this limitation is not clear, as it is not clear how the undefined measurement values of claim 16 can be used to detect a further object from “a goodness of fit of a mathematical function”, particularly when the claim does not set forth any limits on the mathematical function. If the measurement values are the arrival times of the receive signals, how can fitting a mathematical function to those values be used to determine the detection of a further object? Additionally, what is meant by “a further object”? Is this an object that is further away from the object being measured in claim 11? Is it simply an additional object? The specification does not provide any standard for ascertaining what is meant by use of the word “further” in this context. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim that an additional object can be measured based on the received signals when fit to an appropriate mathematical function.
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.
Claims 11-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singer (2020/0116832).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 20, Singer (Fig 7) discloses a lidar device (claim 11), a corresponding method for operating a lidar device (claim 19), and a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program including computer program code for operating a lidar device (claim 20; see paragraph 0071 of Singer), the lidar device and method comprising a transmitter device 708, 710, 712 including at least one laser element 702, 704, 706 (see paragraph 0059); a detector device 720, 722, 724 including a defined number of detector pixels (see paragraph 0061; the receivers must have pixels in order to convert the lidar returns into electrical signals); wherein the transmitter device is configured to emit pulsed transmit signals (see paragraph 0030 for example) which, reflected by an object 714, 716, 718, are received by the detector device as receive signals (see paragraph 0061); and an evaluation device 110 configured to ascertain a speed of a detected object from arrival times of the receive signals acquired per detector pixel in relation to transmission times of the transmit signals (see paragraph 0061, which states that the lidar returns for the beams that follow the scan patterns can be evaluated by the signal processor to output a point cloud that includes velocity of the targets, with speed being part of the velocity of an object; see also claim 6, which states that the laser source is a time of flight laser source, with time of flight measurements being defined in paragraph 0002 as such: “The direct TOF lidar system can receive reflected pulses (e.g., the pulses of light that reflect off the target, if any). A delay between transmission and reception can be utilized to determine a distance between the direct TOF lidar system and the target. The direct TOF lidar system may also determine a velocity of the target by comparing two frames of data; assuming that the target is identified in two frames captured at differing times, a change in the position of the target over time can be utilized to determine the velocity of the target”).
As for claim 12, Singer discloses that the number of laser elements and the number of the detector pixels is the same or different (inherent; these are the only two possible choices for the number of laser elements in relation to the number of detector pixels of the detector).
As for claim 13, Singer discloses that the evaluation of the arrival times in relation of the transmission times is carried out using signal processor 110 (see paragraph 0061).
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 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (2020/0116832) in view of Pacala et al (2019/0011567).
As for claim 14, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 11, but fails to disclose that measurements are carried out individually for each of the detector pixels.
Pacala, in a lidar device, discloses (Fig. 1) a light sensing module 108 that includes a sensor array 126, where each photosensor (which is sometimes referred to as just a “sensor” or a “pixel” as per paragraph 0073) can be a collection of photodetectors such as a SPAD. Pacala further discloses that the system controller 104 can instruct sensor array 126 to sense light one column at a time (see paragraph 0077); the examiner interprets this to mean that measurements are carried out individually for each of the detector pixels as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out measurements individually for each of the detector pixels in the lidar device of Singer as taught by Pacala, the motivation being that carrying out measurements individually for the detector pixels allows for more control of the sequencing in which the pixels of the detector are read out (see paragraph 0077).
As for claim 15, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 11 but fails to disclose that the measurements for a plurality of the detector pixels are carried out simultaneously.
Pacala, in a lidar device, discloses (Fig. 1) a light sensing module 108 that includes a sensor array 126, where each photosensor (which is sometimes referred to as just a “sensor” or a “pixel” as per paragraph 0073) can be a collection of photodetectors such as a SPAD. Pacala further discloses that each sensor of the sensor array corresponds to a particular emitter of the emitter array. Different subsets of emitters can be activated at different times with corresponding subsets of photosensors being read out simultaneously (see paragraph 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measurements for a plurality of the detector pixels to be carried out simultaneously in the device of Singer as taught by Pacala, the motivation being that all emitters can be eventually activated and all the photosensors in the sensor array can be readout through one emission cycle, thereby improving efficiency of the operation of the lidar device (see paragraph 0074 of Pacala).
As for claim 18, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 11, but fails to disclose that each one of the detector pixels is either a SPAD diode, an avalanche photodiode, or a CCD sensor.
Pacala, in a lidar device, discloses (Fig. 1) a light sensing module 108 that includes a sensor array 126, where each photosensor (which is sometimes referred to as just a “sensor” or a “pixel” as per paragraph 0073) can be a collection of photodetectors such as a SPAD.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SPADs as the detectors of Singer as taught by Pacala, the motivation being that SPADs are well known detectors for lidar applications that will produce predictable results.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (2020/0116832) in view of Kotake et al (CN 104603636), as best understood by the examiner.
As for claim 16, Singer discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 11, but fails to disclose using a minimum error square for matching between measurement values.
Singer, in a lidar device for measuring object speed, discloses using a minimum mean square error minimum (formula 3 in paragraphs 0115-0116) is used as part of the processing of the received signal, as that formula most closely matches simulated parameters for received signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a minimum error square in the device of Singer to match between measurement values obtained by the lidar device as taught by Kotake, the motivation being, as taught by Kotake, “Therefore, for example, by using matched statistical quantity to detect gust or turbulence air flow, if the condition is always fixed SNR, it is possible to reduce the processing time consumed by matching processing, and can reduce the statistical quantity or instability generated by error detection” (see paragraph 0227).
As for claim 17, Singer discloses the ability to detect further objects 716, 718 from object 714 as found in Fig. 7 and discussed in paragraph 0061, with Kotake disclosing the ability to perform detection using a fit with a mathematical function in paragraphs 0115-0116 for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0131791 to Tsuboi et al. discloses a laser distance measuring apparatus where the speed of the vehicle housing the lidar apparatus can be determined (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0062-0074); and US 2019/0293794 to Zhang et al. discloses a lidar apparatus where object velocity can be determined based on a comparison of first and second frequency differences (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 December 31, 2025