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
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous rejections. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
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 1-19 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) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No portion of the specification limits the scope of the invention to the determination being based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected.
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 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hasegawa (US 2016/0274035).
In re. claim 1, Hasegawa teaches an apparatus comprising: a Light Detection and Ranging device (10), which is a LiDAR device, 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]); wherein the memory is configured to store, as reference data, characteristics 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 (normal state) (para [0052]-[0054]); 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 and which corresponds to an internal reflection from the window of the LiDAR device (para [0059]), with the 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]); wherein the determination is made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected (the determination steps S106-S108 and S111-S114 only analyzes the first pulse) (para [0081]-[0082])).
However, if the applicant is of the opinion that Hasegawa fails to disclose the determination is made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected, 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 have the determination made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Doing so allows the teachings of the invention to apply with LiDAR systems not utilizing obstacle covers, further improving utility of the system.
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 (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 (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 (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]) and a 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 the first reference reception signal, 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), which is a LiDAR device, 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 and which corresponds to an internal reflection from a window of the LiDAR (para [0057]), with reference data stored as characteristics of a first reference reception signal received firstly after the light is output from the LiDAR device in a state in which the window of the LiDAR device is not contaminated (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]); wherein the determination is made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected (the determination steps S106-S108 and S111-S114 only analyzes the first pulse) (para [0081]-[0082])).
However, if the applicant is of the opinion that Hasegawa fails to disclose the determination is made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected, 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 have the determination made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Doing so allows the teachings of the invention to apply with LiDAR systems not utilizing obstacle covers, further improving utility of the system.
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 (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 wherein 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 (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 wherein 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 (when L1 = Li) (para [0052]) (fig. 5) and a 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 the first reference reception signal (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 (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 reception signal, and a 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 (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 (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, a width of the first reception signal at an intermediate intensity, 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 (covered by obstacle cover) (para [0057]), a width of the first reference reception signal at an intermediate intensity (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 wherein 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claims 1-19 are pending in this application. By this Amendment, several claims are amended and the specification is amended. Support for the amendments to claims 1 and 13 is found at least in the original specification from page 17, line 28 to page 18, line 2 and page 19, lines 22- 29.
While the portion of the specification cited by the applicant refers to an example of “light received first by the receiver 132 immediately after the light is output from the transmitter 131 is light that does not pass through the window”, the applicant fails to identify a portion of the specification that limits the invention to “the determination is made based solely on the first reception signal without a step of determining whether a signal corresponding to light reflected and returned from a target through the window is detected”. Therefore, the disclosure does not have support for the amended claim.
Applicant argues First, Hasegawa structurally relies on the detection of a second pulse (i.e., a multi-echo) as a prerequisite for detecting a foreign matter as the claimed contamination determination routine. As shown in FIG. 9 of Hasegawa, at step S105, a foreign matter detector 42 first "determines whether a multi-echo is detected." (see Hasegawa, paragraph [0077]). Only when the multi-echo (i.e., both the first pulse and the second pulse) is detected, does Hasegawa proceed to evaluate whether the foreign matter is deposited on the front screen. If the second pulse is not detected at step S105, Hasegawa determines, at step S 110, that the optical distance sensor 10 is in an "obstacle cover state" (i.e., the front screen 12 is covered by the obstacle) rather than performing contamination determination based on detecting the first pulse alone. (see Hasegawa, paragraph [0079]).Hasegawa explicitly states that "when the multi-echo is not detected, the pulse in the received light received by the receiver 22 has only one pulse as shown in FIG. 6." Id. (emphasis added). In this situation, Hasegawa does not determine contamination by using only one pulse, but instead determines the obstacle cover state or a foreign matter deposit state (at step S 113) after scanning to detect the multi-echo.
The examiner notes that “the determination step” is limited to “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” as recited in claim 1. This is encompassed by the determination steps S106-S108 and S111-S114 for analyzing the first pulse, as stated in para [0081]-[0082]. The applicant is referencing a step of determining whether or not the system is in an obstacle cover state. This is irrelevant to the contamination determining step, and is therefore considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Second, the threshold parameters Li and Lo (i.e., an excess light amount) used in Hasegawa are preset, fixed design parameters established during sensor manufacturing, not reference data measured from an actual non-contaminated state during operation. Paragraph [0054] of Hasegawa states that "[t]he foreign matter detector 42 sets the first light amount L1 of the first pulse, as an internal light amount Li of the internal reflection R in the normal state." Similarly, the excess light amount Lo is described as a predetermined threshold value used to identify the obstacle cover state. (see Hasegawa, paragraph [0057]). In contrast, amended claim 1 recites that the memory stores, as reference data, "characteristics 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." This claim language requires that the reference data be derived from actual measurement of a first reception signal in a non-contaminated operating state, not from preset design parameters as in Hasegawa.
It is unclear as to how reference data derived from actual measurements of a first reception signal in a non-contaminated operating state is different from preset design parameters, as preset design parameters are set in a non-contaminated state. As the structure merely requires the data to be stored in memory, the limitations on how the data was taken do not further define the structure of the apparatus. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reference data measured from an actual non-contaminated state during operation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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