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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 01 July 2026 overcomes the prior objection(s) and rejection(s). The pending claims have been considered under the remaining statutory requirements. A prior art search was conducted for the claims as presently pending. No rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 is made on the present record. This statement is not an indication that claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “transmit a laser light for external area detection” should perhaps read --transmit laser light for detection of an external area--.
Regarding claim 1, “from external area” should perhaps read --from the external area--.
Regarding claim 4, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 5, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 5, “a predetermined criterion” should perhaps read --the predetermined criterion--.
Regarding claim 6, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 7, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 8, “a first range and points satisfying a second range” should perhaps read --the first range and points satisfying the second range--.
Regarding claim 10, “an end point of a peak” should perhaps read --an end point of the peak--.
Regarding claim 10, “the arbitrary area” should perhaps read --the external arbitrary area --.
Regarding claim 13, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 14, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 16, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Regarding claim 17, “additional classification type” should perhaps read --additional classification necessary type--.
Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is directed to a lidar apparatus comprising “a signal processor” conFig.d to “generate information including coordinates” of “a start point of a peak” and “an end point of the peak” from a “received waveform,” and determining whether the peak start point and peak end point are the same, and differently classifying the pixel according to that determination. The specification as originally filed fails to describe how the peak start and peak end coordinates are determined from the received waveform in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification in pp. 17, 45-46 merely states that the signal processor generates information concerning points “selected” from the received waveform, including a peak start point and a peak end point. These passages recite the intended coordinate outputs but do not offer any procedure, algorithm, or selection criterion by which the processor determines either coordinate from the waveform. Step S200 similarly proceeds directly from receipt of the waveform to already generated point information without describing the intervening determination.
The specification in p. 18 states only that a peak “may mean a portion having the greatest intensity in the received waveform.” This describes a general intensity characteristic of a peak region but does not disclose a procedure that produces the two separately recited coordinates required by claim 1. In particular, ¶ 60 does not explain how the signal processor determines a coordinate for “a start point of a peak,” determines a coordinate for “an end point of the peak,” and thereafter determines whether those two coordinates are the same. Nor does the phrase “a portion having the greatest intensity” provide any guidance for identifying where the peak portion begins and ends as required by the independent claims.
Turning to the single peak scenario, the specification in pp. 18 and 47, together with Fig. 7 and pp. 29-30, merely state or illustrate that the peak start and peak end points “appear as the same point.” These paragraphs simply state the intended coordinate relationship for the illustrated waveform but do not explain how the processor calculates or selects that point from the waveform.
For the composite waveform scenario, the specification in Fig. 3 and pp. 20-21 show two received waveforms A1 and A2 combined into overlapped waveform A and label two separated points, PA1 and PA2, as the start and end of a peak. Fig. 5 and pp. 22-23 similarly show multiple received waveforms combined into overlapped waveform B and label distinct points PB1 and PB2 as the peak start and peak end points. However, the specification remains silent towards any guidance by which the start and end of one peak are determined.
The subsequent classification procedure as disclosed does not supply the missing determination. The specification in pp. 46-48 and Fig. 9 begin with the peak start and peak end coordinates already included in the pixel information. Step S310 merely compares the previously generated coordinates and determines whether they are the same. Thus, the subsequent classification process presupposes that the peak start and peak end coordinates have already been determined while remaining silent towards any direction on how either coordinate is obtained from the received waveform.
The omitted endpoint determination procedure is material to the claimed combination, since whether the generated peak start and peak end coordinates are the same or different is the controlling criteria to the claimed classification. Different peak selection procedures applied to the same waveform can produce different coordinate relationships and consequently change the resulting classification. Because the specification provides no guidance for determining peak start and peak end coordinates, the operative link between the received waveform and the same/different coordinate relationship on which the claimed classification depends demonstrates lack of possession. “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” See MPEP § 2161.01(I). Whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to determine peak start and peak end coordinates is therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
In sum, the specification as originally filed fails to provide any guidance towards how the start and end peak coordinates controlling the claimed classification are determined from the received waveform. The written description is therefore inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 10 is directed to a signal processing method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and recites method steps corresponding to the functions recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 10 and therefore includes the same coordinate generation, determination, and classification requirements. Therefore, claim 20 is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
Claims 11-19 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 10.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Shu (US 20180299552 A1) discloses the analysis of each pixel return histogram to distinguish single bin peaks from broader pulse profiles.
Subasingha (US 20190293768 A1) discloses the analysis of lidar waveform edges and peak width to distinguish saturated flat peaks from unsaturated peaks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights