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 .
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
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: a window blockage detector in claim 23.
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.
The three prong test proceeds below.
(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
A window blockage detector configured to: detect, based upon the received scattered light and received reflected light, a window state
The phrase “A window blockage detector” is a generic placeholder with no specific structural meaning for performing the function of “detect […] a window state.”
Although the term “means” or “step” is missing, the generic placeholder “configured to” is modified by the functional language “detect […] a window state.”
There is no structure provided in the claims for the limitation of “a window blockage detector”. In the specification, the window blockage detector is further described in [0067]-[0069] and [0098].
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 1-5, 7, 11-16, 18, 23-27, 29, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shotan (US 20220179057 A1).
Claim 1: Shotan teaches a method of performing window blockage detection for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
generating one or more beams of light using a laser source within the LiDAR system ([0037]-[0037]),
wherein the LiDAR system having a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126);
transmitting, using the optical component, the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
receiving, by an optical receiver, scattered light pulses from the window and reflected light pulses from an object in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 5, step 506);
detecting, based upon the received scattered light pulses and received reflected light pulses, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157];
generating, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and sending the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
Claim 2: Shotan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting of the window state comprises,
determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse (Fig. 5, step 506 - detecting return pulses);
determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses ([0169] - finding ratio of sent to returned light pulses to find where housing is occluded).
Claim 3: Shotan teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the plurality of firing cycles corresponds to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system, wherein detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses comprises: determining a first ratio of the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses with respect to a total number of the plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the first ratio is greater than or equal to a first threshold; and identifying, in response to the first ratio equal to or greater than the first threshold, the window state to be unblocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses and comparing to threshold to determine obstruction of housing).
Claim 4: Shotan teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the first ratio less than the first threshold: determining a second ratio of the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses with respect to the total number of plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the second ratio is greater than or equal to a second threshold; and identifying, in response to the second ratio greater than or equal to the second threshold, the window state to be blocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses - thus also would find ratio of emitted to not received).
Claim 5: Shotan teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the second ratio less than the second threshold, the window state to be null, wherein a null state exists when the one or more beams of light are transmitted toward an empty sky or a highly absorbent object ([0157]).
Claim 7: Shotan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprises: in response to detecting the window state, setting a window blockage state flag indicating the window state; and storing the window blockage state flag in a window state database ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction - indicates a notification/flag).
Claim 11: Shotan teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claim 12: Shotan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions in a memory device, the instructions being executable by one or more processors for performing a method of window blockage detection for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, the method comprising:
generating one or more beams of light using a laser source within the LiDAR system, wherein the LiDAR system having a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126);
transmitting, using the optical component, the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
receiving, by an optical receiver, scattered light pulses from the window and reflected light pulses from an object in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 5, step 506);
detecting, based upon the received scattered light pulses and received reflected light pulses, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157]);
generating, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and sending the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
Claim 13: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the detecting of the window state comprises,
determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse (Fig. 5, step 506 - detecting return pulses);
determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses ([0169] - finding ratio of sent to returned light pulses to find where housing is occluded).
Claim 14: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the plurality of firing cycles corresponds to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system, wherein detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses comprises: determining a first ratio of the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses with respect to a total number of the plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the first ratio is greater than or equal to a first threshold; and identifying, in response to the first ratio equal to or greater than the first threshold, the window state to be unblocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses and comparing to threshold to determine obstruction of housing).
Claim 15: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the first ratio less than the first threshold: determining a second ratio of the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses with respect to the total number of plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the second ratio is greater than or equal to a second threshold; and identifying, in response to the second ratio greater than or equal to the second threshold, the window state to be blocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses - thus also would find ratio of emitted to not received).
Claim 16: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the second ratio less than the second threshold, the window state to be null, wherein a null state exists when the one or more beams of light are transmitted toward an empty sky or a highly absorbent object ([0157]).
Claim 18: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprises: in response to detecting the window state, setting a window blockage state flag indicating the window state; and storing the window blockage state flag in a window state database ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction - indicates a notification/flag).
Claims 23-27, and 29: Claims 23-27, and 29 are product claims corresponding to computer-readable medium claims 12-15, and 17. Thus, see rejections above.
Claim 33: Shotan teaches the LiDAR system of claim 23, wherein the window blockage detector is further configured to perform at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claim 34: Shotan teaches a vehicle comprising a LiDAR system, the LiDAR system comprises:
a laser source configured to generate one or more beams of light within the LiDAR system (Fig 4B, transmitter 420, [0037]-[0037]);
a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126),
wherein the optical component is configured to transmit the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
an optical receiver configured to receive scattered light from the window, and reflected light from an object, if any, in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 4B, receiver 430 and Fig. 5, step 506);
a window blockage detector configured to: detect, based upon the received scattered light and received reflected light, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157]);
generate, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and send the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
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 6, 17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shotan in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1).
Claim 6: Shotan teaches the method of Claim 1. Shotan does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the method further comprising: measuring signal widths of the received scattered light, wherein the signal widths of the received scattered light facilitate the detecting of the window state indicating whether the window is blocked ([0138] – detecting characteristics of light pulse, such as pulse duration, to detect debris).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of detecting pulse duration, as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan. Specifically, McWhirter’s pulse duration detection could be added to the detection as taught by Shotan because analyzing other characteristics of the light pulse (other than just TOF) would allow for more sensitive and accurate detection of debris blocking the window as more parameters are examined to provide a more complete picture of the state of the window.
Claim 17: Shotan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12. Shotan does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the computer-readable medium further comprising: measuring signal widths of the received scattered light, wherein the signal widths of the received scattered light facilitate the detecting of the window state indicating whether the window is blocked ([0138] – detecting characteristics of light pulse, such as pulse duration, to detect debris).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of detecting pulse duration, as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan. Specifically, McWhirter’s pulse duration detection could be added to the detection as taught by Shotan because analyzing other characteristics of the light pulse (other than just TOF) would allow for more sensitive and accurate detection of debris blocking the window as more parameters are examined to provide a more complete picture of the state of the window.
Claim 28: Claim 28 is a product claim corresponding to the computer-readable medium claim 17. Thus, see rejection above.
Claims 8-10, 19-22, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shotan in view of Daisuke (JP 2018072288 A).
Claim 8: Shotan teaches the method of Claim 1.
Shotan does not explicitly teach wherein detecting the window state comprises: dividing the FOV into a grid of segments corresponding to scanning ranges of the LiDAR system in two directions; determining, for each grid segments, a window blockage state flag indicating whether a portion of the window corresponding to the grid segment is blocked; detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments
However, Shotan does teach emitting lasers through different sections of the housing ([0023]) and sensing obstructed sections ([0165]).
Shotan does not teach, but Daisuke does teach, that the segments are grid segments (Fig. 5 and pg 4 of attached PDF).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific grid, as taught by Daisuke, instead of the more broad ‘sections’ as taught by Shotan because a defined grid would allow for precise mapping of any debris that are detected.
Claim 9: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments comprises: determining a number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists; determining whether the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists is greater than or equal to a threshold number of window blockage flags; identifying, in response to the number of the window blockage flags indicating window blockage exists greater than or equal to the threshold number of window blockage flags, the window state to be blocked. ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 10: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists less than the threshold number of window blockage flags: determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse; determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses, wherein the plurality of firing cycles correspond to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system. ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 19: Shotan teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 12.
Shotan does not explicitly teach wherein detecting the window state comprises: dividing the FOV into a grid of segments corresponding to scanning ranges of the LiDAR system in two directions; determining, for each grid segments, a window blockage state flag indicating whether a portion of the window corresponding to the grid segment is blocked; detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments.
However, Shotan does teach emitting lasers through different sections of the housing ([0023]) and sensing obstructed sections ([0165]).
Shotan does not teach, but Daisuke does teach, that the segments are grid segments (Fig. 5 and pg 4 of attached PDF).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific grid, as taught by Daisuke, instead of the more broad ‘sections’ as taught by Shotan because a defined grid would allow for precise mapping of any debris that are detected.
Claim 20: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments comprises: determining a number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists; determining whether the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists is greater than or equal to a threshold number of window blockage flags; identifying, in response to the number of the window blockage flags indicating window blockage exists greater than or equal to the threshold number of window blockage flags, the window state to be blocked ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 21: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 20, further comprising, in response to the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists less than the threshold number of window blockage flags: determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse; determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses, wherein the plurality of firing cycles correspond to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 22: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 21, further comprising at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claims 30-32: Claims 30-32 are product claims corresponding to computer-readable medium claims 19-21. Thus, see rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645