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 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: “rotating deflection unit” and “evaluation unit” in claims 1, 13, 16, and 20-21.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 16, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueno et al. (US 2022/0268896).
With regard to claim 12, Ueno discloses a LIDAR sensor (Fig. 1), comprising:
a transmitting unit (40);
a receiving unit (60);
a rotating deflection unit (50);
and an evaluation unit (100);
wherein:
the rotating deflection unit is configured to:
deflect laser light, generated by the transmitting unit, into surroundings of the LIDAR sensor in a first rotation angle range (Fig. 1: optical path DL into rotation angle range RA, para. [0038]) of the rotating deflection unit, and to guide components of the emitted laser light reflected in the surroundings to the receiving unit of the LIDAR sensor (optical path RL), and deflect the laser light, generated by the transmitting unit, within the LIDAR sensor to the receiving unit in a second rotation angle range of the rotating deflection unit, without the laser light thus deflected leaving the LIDAR sensor (Fig. 5: light reflected from reference angle marker 70, within scanning angle range RB, para. [0054])
the evaluation unit is configured to:
receive a first signal of the receiving unit which represents laser light received by the receiving unit within the first rotation angle range (para. [0038]),
receive a second signal of the receiving unit which represents laser light received by the receiving unit within the second rotation angle range (para. [0054], receiving incident light when scanning range includes the reference rotation angle AT)
automatically differentiate the first signal from the second signal (Fig. 4 and para. [0049] generate signal strength distribution at all scanning angles step S60, detect peak signal at reference rotation angle as different S70) , and
check an angle calibration of the rotating deflection unit based on the second signal (para. [0060], calculate deviation amount of detection angle S80).
With regard to claim 13, the rotating deflection unit is configured to deflect the laser light in the first rotation angle and in the second rotation angle range using the same mirror unit (51) of the deflection unit.
With regard to claim 16, the optical axis of the transmitting unit, optical axis of the receiving unit (Fig. 1: both optical axes of transmitter 40 and receiver 60 are vertical in the page), and a rotation axis (AX) of the rotating deflection unit (50) are situated in the vertical plane perpendicular to the page, and for the second rotation angle range the mirror is essentially parallel to optical axis.
With regard to claim 20, the first signal is differentiated from the second signal based on a light intensity of the laser light in the receiving unit, which corresponds to the first or second rotation angel range (para. [0058]Fig. 6, signal strength vs. rotation angle).
With regard to claim 22, based on a result of the check of angle calibration, an automatic recalibration of a rotor angle (deflecting mirror) of the LIDAR sensor is carried out (Fig. 4 S90 & para. [0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15,17-19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 15, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner. However, two references (JP201273216 & JP2014194380 by Denso Wave Inc) were not considered because Japanese characters are incorrectly encoded as musical and chess symbols, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Anderson et al. discloses LIDAR with calibrated angle markers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645