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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112(f) interpretation of claim 1 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 02 March 2026, with respect to claims 1-10 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Therefore, the §103 rejections of claims 1-10 have been maintained.
The first amendment to claim 1 is in regards to the light routing device. This limitation presents an antecedent issue since a light routing device is not previously recited and, therefore, this limitation has no patentable bearing on the method. The second amendment to claim 1 is in regards to cyclic allocation, which also presents an antecedent issue since it is not previously recited and it has not been correlated with the action of circularly allocating. Therefore, this limitation is merely providing a definition and has no patentable bearing on the method. Additionally, the amendment to claim 2 does not limit each light channel to a single light detector; rather, it requires a minimum of one light detector for each light channel.
The Examiner furthermore notes that, per MPEP §714, language deleted from the claims must be marked up with strikethroughs or double-brackets, rather than be removed altogether. The Examiner is unable to determine the deleted language without performing a line-by-line comparison of both sets of claims. Claim 2 has been improper indicated as an original claim when it is actually an amended claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: In Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “claim1” should instead be --claim 1--.
Claim 2: In Lines 1-2, the Examiner assumes that “wherein circularly allocating” should instead be --further comprising circularly allocating--.
Claim 2: In Line 5, the Examiner assumes that “wherein, the each light channel” should instead be --wherein each light channel--.
Claim 3: In Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “time; part” should instead be --time, part--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “circularly allocating, by a light routing device, each period signal…” and “a light routing device, configured to circularly allocate each periodic signal…” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light routing device" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that this limitation should read --a light routing device--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein cyclic allocation" in Line 8. The need for an antecedent is implied by the “wherein”; thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that this limitation carries no patentable weight on the method of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 2024/0004072), hereinafter Terada, in view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0334255), hereinafter Shin.
Claim 1: Terada discloses a LIDAR (11, Fig. 1) ranging method, comprising:
allocating each periodic signal of a transmit signal to each light channel (in device 31) [0041-0042], so that a light routing device does not need to wait for a previous signal to return before sending a next signal (no patentable weight);
monitoring a beat signal or a returned light pulse signal in each light channel (“The detection unit 33… detects an interference beam having a difference frequency”, [0047]); and
calculating a target distance according to a frequency of the beat signal or return delay time of the light pulse signal (“The circuit unit 22 measures a beat frequency… and thereby measures the distance to the measurement target”, [0050]),
wherein cyclic allocation refers to guiding each periodic signal to each light channel in arrangement order of the light channels (inherent).
Terada is silent with respect to circularly allocating each periodic signal of a transmit signal to each light channel in a chronological order.
Shin, however, in the same field of endeavor of LIDAR, discloses a LIDAR ranging method (using LIDAR 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
circularly allocating each periodic signal of a transmit signal to each light channel in a chronological order (inherent to TDM) [0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Terada’s LIDAR ranging method with Shin’s circularly allocating for the purpose of efficiently making an accurate determination of the target distance.
Claim 2: Terada, in view of Shin, does not explicitly disclose circularly allocating at least one periodic signal of the transmit signal to each light channel in a chronological order before a reflected signal from a farthest target object within a maximum-ranging range is received in any light channel.
However, such a configuration involves a mere adjustment of the TDM for multiplexing at a desired speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Terada’s method to circularly allocate a period signal to each light channel before the farthest-reaching reflected signal is received for operating the LIDAR efficiently by eliminating lag time. Terada’s modified method further discloses wherein each light channel is equipped with at least one light detector (evident from Fig. 1).
Claim 3: Terada further discloses wherein:
a frequency of the transmit signal changes with time (inherent),
part of the transmit signal is partitioned as a local oscillator signal (LO) [0042], and
the local oscillator signal (LO) is combined with the reflected signal in each light channel to form the beat signal [0063].
Claim 4: Terada further discloses wherein a process of calculating the target distance according to the frequency of the beat signal comprises:
calculating a delay time tn of the beat signal fIFn detected at an nth chirp period relative to a start point of the nth chirp period through
PNG
media_image1.png
58
114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein T is a chirp period duration and B is a bandwidth (well-known concept in chirp modulation, [0041-0042]);
calculating a total delay time [Symbol font/0x44]t of the beat signal fIFn detected at the nth chirp period relative to a start point of the transmit signal through
PNG
media_image2.png
48
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein Tn is an nth chirp period duration (evident that the total delay time is the sum of each individual delay); and
calculating the target distance through
PNG
media_image3.png
58
94
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein c is a speed of light (well- known mathematical concept, wherein roundtrip distance (2R) equals speed (c) multiplied by time (return delay time [Symbol font/0x44]t)).
Claim 5: Terada further discloses wherein
the transmit signal (TX) is a light pulse signal [0041], and the transmit signal in each light channel is reflected by a target object (12), returned to each light channel, and detected by a light detector (33) in each light channel [0043]; and
a process of calculating the target distance according to the return delay time of the light pulse signal comprises:
recording a return delay time [Symbol font/0x44]t of the light pulse signal; and
calculating the target distance through
PNG
media_image3.png
58
94
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein c is a speed of light (well- known mathematical concept, wherein roundtrip distance (2R) equals speed (c) multiplied by time (return delay time [Symbol font/0x44]t)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877