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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puglia et al (US 2019/0086517).
For claim 1, Puglia teaches a laser receiving system (Figure 6A), comprising:
a receiver (156), a transimpedance amplification circuit (158, 160), and at least one measurement circuit (162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172), wherein the at least one measurement circuit comprise a first measurement circuit (162, 166, 170), and
wherein the receiver is connected to a terminal of the transimpedance amplification circuit (input terminal), and is configured to receive an echo laser beam and output an echo signal ([81]);
the transimpedance amplification circuit has a terminal connected to the receiver (input terminal) and another terminal separately connected to each of the at least one measurement circuit (161), and is configured to perform transimpedance amplification on the echo signal (as understood by examination of Figure 6A); and
the first measurement circuit is configured to output a sampling signal (output of 170) after shaping the echo signal (via 162 and 166, as understood by examination of Figure 6A).
For claim 2, Puglia further teaches:
the first measurement circuit comprises a first pulse shaping circuit (162, 166) and a first sampling module (170), the first pulse shaping circuit is configured to receive and then shape a transimpedance-amplified echo signal (as understood by examination of Figure 6A), and the first sampling module is configured to sample a shaped echo signal and output a sampling signal (as understood by [82] and examination of Figure 6A).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puglia in view of Wachter et al (US 2021/0132197).
For claim 3, Puglia further teaches:
the at least one measurement circuit further comprise a second measurement circuit (164, 168, 172), the second measurement circuit comprises a second pulse shaping circuit (164, 168) and a second sampling module (172), the second pulse shaping circuit is configured to receive and then shape a transimpedance-amplified echo signal (161), the second sampling module is configured to sample a shaped echo signal and output a sampling signal (107, as understood by examination of Figure 6A),
Puglia fails to distinctly disclose:
pulse width compression of the second pulse shaping circuit is lower than pulse width compression of the first pulse shaping circuit.
However, Wachter teaches the use of multiple (N, Figure 1 and [53]) LIDAR photodetectors and detector circuits within a receiver (120 of Figure 1, as shown in detail in Figure 4A, [72]) wherein the received light pulses 125 are converted into analog current signals indicative of their pulse widths ([49]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of parallel transmitter (174 to 178) and receiver paths within Puglia (from 156 to 168) as taught by Wachter in order to create a strong composite light pulse that has a greater detection accuracy than a single light pulse ([69]).
The combination of Puglia and Wachter as cited above teaches:
pulse width compression (pulse width corresponding to intensity levels of received light pulses) of the second pulse shaping circuit (a second of a plurality of parallel receiver paths within Puglia) is lower than pulse width compression of the first pulse shaping circuit (capable of, dependent upon the received light pulses).
For claims 7, the use of the laser receiving system of claim 3 with a laser emission system and a digital processing unit do not further define the structure of the laser receiving system of claim 3 over the prior art. The laser receiving system of claim 7 is not dependent upon the laser emission system and the digital processing unit for performing its operation and therefore relates only to the intended use of the laser receiving system of claim 3.
Note MPEP section 2114 which indicates that "the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art" (emphasis added). Applicant should also note the holdings in In re Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987); In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (1997); In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (1971); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (1967); In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528 (1959); and Hewlewtt-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, 15 USPQ 1525 (1990). Each of these cases has held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the apparatus of the prior art to be patentable, and that the claimed manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used or operated cannot be relied upon for patentability. Moreover, it has been long held that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
Furthermore, the combination of Puglia and Wachter teaches the limitations as follows:
the laser ranging system comprises the laser receiving system according to claim 3, a laser emission system (multiple transmission paths within Puglia, as defined in the rejection of claim 3 above), and a digital processing unit (168, Puglia), wherein the laser emission system is used to emit a laser pulse (as understood by the combination of references as cited above);
a detection period of the laser ranging system comprises a first detection period and a second detection period in sequence ([57]-[58], Wachter);
the laser emission system is configured to emit a secondary laser pulse in the first detection period ([57]-[58], Wachter);
the laser emission system is configured to emit a primary laser pulse in the second detection period ([57]-[58], Wachter), wherein a start time of the first detection period is earlier than a start time of the second detection period ([57]-[58], Wachter), and power of the secondary laser pulse is less than power of the primary laser pulse ([57]-[58], Wachter); and
the digital processing unit is configured to calculate the sampling signal output by the laser receiving system and then output target information (as understood by the combination of references).
For claim 8, the combination of Puglia and Wachter as cited above teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
the laser receiving system is configured to receive a secondary echo laser beam (as understood by the combination of references as cited above) corresponding to the secondary laser pulse and output a first sampling signal and a second sampling signal (output of Puglia’s 170 and 172 corresponding to the secondary echo laser beam); and
the digital processing unit is configured to perform calculations based on the first sampling signal or the second sampling signal and then output a first target distance, wherein the first sampling signal is output by the first measurement circuit, and the second sampling signal is output by the second measurement circuit (as understood by the combination as cited above, by examination of Puglia’s Figure 6A and [82]).
For claim 9, the combination of Puglia and Wachter as cited above teaches the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches:
the digital processing unit is configured to perform the calculations based on the second sampling signal and then outputs first reflectivity (as understood by examination of Puglia’s Figure 6A and [82]).
For claim 10, the combination of Puglia and Wachter as cited above teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
the laser receiving system is configured to receive a primary echo laser beam corresponding to the primary laser pulse and output a third sampling signal and a fourth sampling signal (output of Puglia’s 170 and 172 corresponding to the primary echo laser beam, as understood by the combination of references as cited above); and
the digital processing unit is configured to perform calculations based on the fourth sampling signal and then output a second target distance, wherein the third sampling signal is output by the first measurement circuit, and the fourth sampling signal is output by the second measurement circuit (as understood by the combination as cited above, by examination of Puglia’s Figure 6A and [82]).
For claim 11, the combination of Puglia and Wachter as cited above teaches the limitations of claim 10 and further teaches:
the digital processing unit is configured to perform calculations based on the fourth sampling signal and then output second reflectivity (as understood by the combination of references as cited above).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puglia and Wachter in view of Liu et al (US 2021/0270975).
For claim 4, Puglia teaches the transimpedance amplification circuit of claim 3 but fails to teach the details thereof.
However, Liu teaches a transimpedance amplifier of a LIDAR receiver ([44]) comprising:
an operational amplifier (U1), a first direct current voltage source (Vs), and a first resistor (resistor connected to O), wherein a positive electrode of the operational amplifier is connected to the first direct current voltage source (positive power supply input terminal of U1);
a negative electrode of the operational amplifier is grounded (negative power supply input terminal of U1);
a non-inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier is connected to an output terminal of a receiver (B11, Figure 9A) and a terminal of the first resistor (as understood by examination of Figure 9B);
an inverting input terminal of the operational amplifier is grounded (as understood by examination of Figure 9B); and
an output terminal of the operational amplifier is connected to another terminal of the first resistor and the measurement circuit (as understood by examination of Figure 9B).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Puglia’s 158 using Liu’s Figure 9A since it merely relates to a specific-for-broad substitution, i.e., any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the generic symbol for a transimpedance amplifier suggests that any well-known transimpedance amplification circuitry can/should be used to implement this generic teaching.
Furthermore, the particular known technique of implementing a transimpedance amplifier circuit was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Liu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CALRISSIAN PUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-5070. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 (flex).
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849
Prosecution Insights