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 information disclosure statement filed 7/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/8/2023 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “…for a check one of the data periods…” should be amended to “…for a check of one of the data periods…”.
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1.
In claim 16, line 13, “…for a check one of the data periods…” should be amended to “…for a check of one of the data periods…”.
Claims 17 and 18 depend on claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-15 and 20 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.
In claims 10 and 20, the terms “… the data periods…” lack antecedent basis in respective parent claims 9 and 19.
Claims 11-15 depend on claim 10.
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)(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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LaChapelle (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0043149).
With respect to claim 19, LaChapelle discloses: A system, comprising: A LIDAR system configured to transmit a system output signal such that a sample region is illuminated by the system output signal [ taught by figure 6 and figure 7; scanner (120) illuminates a sample region ]; electronics that calculating multiple different candidate LIDAR data results for the
sample region, each of the different candidate LIDAR data results being a candidate for a radial
velocity and/or a distance between the LIDAR system and an object in the sample region [ taught by controller (150) and receiver (140); paragraph [0044] states, “…A controller 150 may be configured to analyze one or more characteristics of the electrical signal 145 from the receiver 140 to determine one or more characteristics of the target 130, such as its distance downrange from the lidar system 100…” ], the electronics identifying which one of the candidate LIDAR data results represents valid LIDAR data for the sample region [ paragraph [0122] states, “…In particular embodiments, a controller 150 may determine, based on the amplitudes of one or more frequency components associated with a received pulse of light 410, whether the received pulse of light 410 is associated with a particular emitted pulse of light 400. If one or more frequency components of a received pulse of light 410 match a spectral signature of a particular emitted pulse of light 400, then the controller 150 may determine that the received pulse of light 410 is associated with the particular emitted pulse of light 400 (e.g., the received pulse of light 410 includes scattered light from the emitted pulse of light 400). Otherwise, if the frequency components do not match, then the controller 150 may determine that the received pulse of light 410 is not associated with the particular emitted pulse of light 400…”; therefore, the received pulse associated with a particular emitted pulse of light represents valid LIDAR data ].
Claim 9 is anticipated by the subject matter of LaChapelle, as applied to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 16-18 would be allowable upon correction of the typographical errors in claims 1 and 16, as objected to in this office action.
The cited prior art does not teach or suggest the system output signals being transmitted during different data periods when taken in combination with using the candidate frequencies for a check one of the data periods to identify which of the candidate frequencies for a subject one of the data periods is at the beat frequency for the beating signal associated with the subject data period; when these limitations are taken in the entire context of claims 1 and 16.
Claims 10-15 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights