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.
Claims 1-7, 12-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US 2016/0274035).
In re. claim 1, Hasegawa teaches an apparatus comprising: a Light Detection and Ranging device (10) with an area for detection of surroundings of a vehicle (outdoor environment) (para [0099]); a memory storing a program for determining a state of the LiDAR device (program memorized in ROM) (para [0043]); and a processor (CPU) configured to execute the stored program (para [0043]), wherein the processor is further configured to: compare data about a first reception signal (FM deposit signal), which is received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device (para [0059]), with reference data (normal state) (para [0053]); and determine whether the LiDAR device is contaminated based on whether an error between the data about the first reception signal and the reference data is greater than a threshold (greater than Li ) (para [0060]).
In re. claim 2, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, an intensity of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (when L1 = Li) (para [0052]) (fig. 5).
In re. claim 3, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare an intensity of the first reception signal with the reference data stored in the memory; and determine that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on an error between the intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data being greater than the threshold (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
In re. claim 4, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Li) and maximum width (β) (para [0066]) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (figs. 4-5).
In re. claim 5, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare a maximum intensity and maximum width of the first reception signal with the reference data (L1 and W1) (figs. 7-8); and determine that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data or an error between the maximum width of the first reception signal and the reference data being greater than the threshold (para [0060] and [0066]).
In re. claim 6, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Lo) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]) and an width (W1) of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof (width (W1) taken at intensity La) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]).
In re. claim 7, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare a maximum intensity (Lo) (para [0057]) of the first reception signal and an width of the first reception signal at an intermediate intensity with the reference data (width (W1) taken at intensity La) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]); and determine that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal being greater than the threshold (para [0057]).
In re. claim 12, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, at least one of a maximum intensity of a first reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated, a maximum width (W1) of the first reference reception signal (width (W1)) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]).
In re. claim 13, Hasegawa teaches a control method of an apparatus including a Light Detection and Ranging device (10), comprising: outputting light (L) through the LiDAR device (fig. 2); comparing data about a first reception signal (R), which is received firstly after the light is output from the LiDAR device (para [0057]), with reference data (normal state) (para [0053]); and determining whether the LiDAR device is contaminated based on whether an error between the data about the first reception signal and the reference data is greater than a threshold (greater than Li ) (para [0060]).
In re. claim 14, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data, an intensity of a first reference reception signal received firstly after the light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (when L1 = Li) (para [0052]) (fig. 5), and wherein the comparing of the data about the first reception signal with the reference data comprises comparing an intensity of the first reception signal with the reference data, and the determining of whether the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated comprises determining that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on an error between the intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data being greater than the threshold (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
In re. claim 15, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Li) and maximum width (β) (para [0066]) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (figs. 4-5), and wherein the comparing of the data about the first reception signal with the reference data comprises comparing a maximum intensity and maximum width of the first reception signal with the reference data, and the determining of whether the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated comprises determining that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data or an error between the maximum width of the first reception signal and the reference data being greater than the threshold (para [0060] and [0066]).
In re. claim 16, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data, a maximum intensity of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (when L1 = Li) (para [0052]) (fig. 5) and an width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof (width (W1) taken at intensity La) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]), and wherein the comparing of the data about the first reception signal with the reference data comprises comparing a maximum intensity of the first reception signal and an width of the first reception signal at the intermediate intensity with the reference data (comparing to Li and β) (para [0066]), and the determining of whether the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated comprises determining that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data or an error between the width of the first reception signal at the intermediate intensity and the reference data being greater than the threshold (para [0060] and [0066]).
In re. claim 19, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data at least one of a maximum intensity of a first reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
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 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa as applied above, and further in view of Samukawa et al. (US 2004/0257556), hereinafter Samukawa.
In re. claim 8, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Lo) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]) and a maximum width (W1) of the first reference reception signal (width (W1)) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]).
Hasegawa fails to disclose a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof.
Samukawa teaches a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof (at t13 and t14) (fig. 7) (para [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hasegawa to incorporate the teachings of Samukawa to have a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity, for the purpose of providing more information to the processor to determine the type of debris.
In re. claim 9, Hasegawa as modified by Samukawa (see Hasegawa) teach the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare a maximum intensity of the first reception signal, a maximum width of the first reference reception signal, and an width of the first reception signal at an intermediate intensity with the reference data (as modified above); and determine that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
In re. claim 17, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Lo) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]), a maximum width (W1) of the first reference reception signal (width (W1)) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]), and wherein the comparing of the data about the first reception signal with the reference data comprises comparing a maximum intensity of the first reception signal, and the determining of whether the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated comprises determining that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
Hasegawa fails to disclose a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof.
Samukawa teaches a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof (at t13 and t14) (fig. 7) (para [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hasegawa to incorporate the teachings of Samukawa to have a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity, for the purpose of providing more information to the processor to determine the type of debris.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa as applied above, and further in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 2018/0284226), hereinafter LaChapelle.
In re. claim 10, Hasegawa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Lo) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]) and a maximum width (W1) of the first reference reception signal (width (W1)) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]).
Hasegawa fails to disclose an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity.
LaChaepple teaches an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity (rise time (702)) (fig. 13) (para [0142]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hasegawa to incorporate the teachings of LaChaepple to have an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity, for the purpose of utilizing additional characteristics of the return light pulse, improving accuracy of the system.
In re. claim 11, Hasegawa as modified by LaChaepple (see Hasegawa) teach the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare a maximum intensity of the first reception signal, an width of the first reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof, and an amplification time of the first reception signal with the reference data (as modified above); and determine that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
In re. claim 18, Hasegawa teaches the control method according to claim 13, further comprising storing, as the reference data, a maximum intensity (Lo) of a first reference reception signal received firstly after light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which a window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]), an width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity thereof (width (W1) taken at intensity La) (Fig. 8) (para [0064]), and wherein the comparing of the data about the first reception signal with the reference data comprises comparing a maximum intensity of the first reception signal, and the determining of whether the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated comprises determining that the window of the LiDAR device is contaminated based on at least one of an error between the maximum intensity of the first reception signal and the reference data (greater than Li ) (para [0060]) (figs. 4 and 7).
Hasegawa fails to disclose an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity.
LaChaepple teaches an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity (rise time (702)) (fig. 13) (para [0142]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hasegawa to incorporate the teachings of LaChaepple to have an amplification time from a point in time that the first reference reception signal is amplified to a point in time that the first reference reception signal reaches the maximum intensity, for the purpose of utilizing additional characteristics of the return light pulse, improving accuracy of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights