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 .
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 04/28/2023, claims foreign priority to KR Application No. 10-2020-0143191, filed on 10/30/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (lDS) submitted on 05/01/2023 and 04/28/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, “a predetermined angle range” should read
--the predetermined angle range--.
Regarding claim 9, “a predetermined angle range” should read
--the predetermined angle range--.
Regarding claim 11, “a predetermined angle range” should read
--the predetermined angle range--.
Regarding claim 12, “the swept axis” should read --a swept axis--.
Claims 6-7, 10 and 13 is further objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 5 recites “the optical transmitting unit.” It is unclear which of the one or more optical transmitting units the limitation is being directed towards. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --the one or more optical transmitting units--.
Regarding claim 1, line 6 recites “the light transmitting units.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --the one or more optical transmitting units--.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 10-11, the recitations of “the optical transmitting unit” is indefinite because it is unclear which of the one or more optical transmitting units, introduced in parent claim 1, the limitation is being directed towards. For the purposes of examination, reach recitation of the limitation in the dependent claims is understood to read --the one or more optical transmitting units--.
Regarding claims 8, line 2 recites “a servo motor whose direction is changed within a predetermined angle range.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards the predetermined angle range of the light pulses introduced in parent claim 1, or to introduce another predetermined angle range associated with the operation of the servo motor. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --a servo motor configured to change the light emitted within the predetermined angle range--.
Regarding claim 10, line 3 recites “an object” and again in line 4. It is unclear whether the limitation is directed to the “external tracking object” introduced in parent claim 1 or introduces a second object. For the purposes of examination, the recitations are understood to read --the external tracking object--.
Regarding claim 12, line 2 recites “the optical transmitting unit.” It is unclear which of the plurality of optical transmitting units the limitation is being directed towards. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --the plurality of optical transmitting units--.
Regarding claim 13, lines 1-4 recite “the optical transmitting unit” and “the one optical transmitting unit.” It is unclear which of the plurality of optical transmitting units the limitation is being directed towards. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --one of the plurality of optical transmitting units-- and --the one of the plurality of optical transmitting units--, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, line 3 recite “another optical transmitting unit.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards one of the plurality of optical transmitting units or introduces a distinct optical transmitting unit outside of the plurality of optical transmitting units. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read --another one of the plurality of optical transmitting units--.
Claims 2-13 are further rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
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)(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.
(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, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Campbell (US20190107623A1).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell discloses an object tracking system (Fig. 1 as further detailed in Fig. 4, system 100; ¶ 171, “lidar system 100 to monitor or track objects”) for emitting light pulses to an external tracking object (Fig. 4, light 125, target 130; ¶¶ 43 & 73, emitted light is pulsed) including an optical sensor (Fig. 4, receiver 140), the object tracking system comprising:
one or more optical transmitting units configured to emit light pulses to the outside (Fig. 4, transmitting unit 110); and
a driving unit configured to adjust an optical path of the optical transmitting unit (Fig. 4, driving unit 120 adjusts direction of optical transmit path), wherein the driving unit adjusts light emitted from the light transmitting units to be reciprocally swept within a predetermined angle range (Fig. 20, ¶ 146, scans back and forth in Θy between Θmin and Θmax).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell discloses the object tracking system of claim 1, and further discloses: further comprising a control unit configured to control the driving unit (Fig. 1, controller 150; ¶ 44), wherein the optical transmitting unit has a sweep angle ψ within a predetermined angle range (Fig. 20, ¶ 146, sweep angle Θy(t) within angle range Θmin and Θmax, sweep angle analogous to ¶ 63, “angular value”), and the control unit calculates the sweep angle ψ (¶¶ 44, 63, “angular value” is determined based on angular position of scan mirror, through controller 150) by converting control data for the driving unit into a periodic function (¶ 44, 90, “desired scan pattern” is defined as a “periodic-function” as further detailed in ¶¶ 131,146, where the periodic scan profile of Fig. 20 “represent the position of a scanning mirror”).
Regarding claim 11, Campbell discloses the object tracking system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the light pulses emitted from the optical transmitting unit include a data bit (¶¶ 34-35, pulsing scheme) and a sweep bit (Fig. 20, 500), and the sweep bit includes an up sweep bit generated when the optical transmitting unit is rotated in one direction within a predetermined angle range (Fig. 20, 500A; ¶ 146) and a down sweep bit generated when the optical transmitting unit is rotated in another direction within the predetermined angle range (Fig. 20, 500B; ¶ 146).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Day (US20190324147A1).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell teaches the object tracking system of claim 11, however does not teach: wherein the number of optical transmitting units is plural, the plurality of optical transmitting units emit the light pulses swept on different axes, and the light pulses of the optical transmitting unit further include an axis bit which is data for the swept axis. Day teaches the limitation in Fig. 6A and ¶¶ 168-170, teaching two optical transmitting units used to sweep different axes, including data exchange for scanning synchronization and timing control between the two optical transmitting units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical transmitting unit of Campbell with the plurality of optical transmitting units of Day with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for extended detection range and improved signal-to-noise (Day, ¶¶ 168-170).
Regarding claim 13, Campbell in view of Day teaches the object tracking system of claim 12, however the current combination does not teach: wherein the light pulses of the optical transmitting unit are emitted at regular intervals, and one or more light pulses emitted from another optical transmitting unit are disposed between two light pulses emitted from the one optical transmitting unit. Day, in a separate embodiment, teaches the emission at regular intervals (¶¶ 100, 152) and the interweaving of pulses between two optical transmitting units (¶ 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the optical transmitting unit of Campbell in view of Day with the additional teachings of Day with a reasonable expectation for success in order to mitigate crosstalk interference and provide predictable latency for enhanced data synchronization (Day, ¶¶ 104, 168).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field (US4846297A) in view of Campbell.
Regarding claim 1, Field discloses an object tracking system for emitting light [1: …] to an external tracking object (Figs. 1-6, “tracking device aims the scanner at a target”) including an optical sensor (Fig. 6, photodetector 110), the object tracking system comprising:
one or more optical transmitting units configured to emit light [1: …] to the outside (Fig. 1, scanner unit 54); and
a driving unit configured to adjust an optical path of the optical transmitting unit (Fig. 3, electromechanical linear actuator 60; Col. 5:27-32), wherein the driving unit adjusts light emitted from the light transmitting units [2: …] (Col. 5:27-29, controls “angle of elevation”; Fig. 1, angle of elevation E).
Field does not disclose:
(1) [emitting light] “pulses”; and,
(2) [driving unit adjusts light emitted] “to be reciprocally swept within a predetermined angle range.”
However, Campbell teaches (1) in ¶¶ 34-35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical transmitting unit of Field and with the pulsed emission scheme of Campbell with a reasonable expectation for success in order to balancing between range, signal-to-noise, throughput, and power budget thereby yielding a transmission unit that can be dynamically optimized for improved efficiency (Campbell, ¶¶ 34-35).
Field as currently combined with Campbell does not teach (2). However, Campbell further teaches the limitation in Fig. 20, ¶ 146, elevation angle reciprocally swept between angle range Θmin and Θmax. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driving unit of Field in view of Campbell with the scan profile as further taught by Campbell with a reasonable expectation for success in order to maximize scanning efficiency and data throughout, thereby yielding a system with higher temporal resolution and improved scanning efficiency (Campbell, ¶ 146).
Regarding claim 2, Field in view of Campbell teaches the object tracking system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the driving unit further includes a power generation unit configured to generate mechanical power (Field, Col. 5:26-32, “actuator motor” of the “electromechanical linear actuator 60”), and the driving unit adjusts an attitude of the optical transmitting unit (Field, Col. 5:27-29, Fig. 1, angle of elevation E; controls “angle of elevation”).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field in view of Campbell further in view of Fritsch (US20180091018A1).
Regarding claim 3, Field in view of Campbell teaches the object tracking system of claim 2, however does not teach the specific construction of the driving unit, specifically: wherein the power generation unit is a DC motor driven with an angular velocity ω. Fritsch teaches in ¶¶ 6 and 26 the specifics of an electromechanical linear actuator (“electrically driven device”) employing a DC motor operating at an angular velocity (rpm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the linear actuator driving unit of Field in view of Campbell and with the scotch yoke linear actuator design construction of Fritsch (i.e., the DC motor, drive shaft, eccentric drive pin, sliding block, and cross slider) with a reasonable expectation for success in order to achieve a lower noise levels during actuation (Fritsch, ¶ 17), thereby yielding a system with reduced mechanical vibrations and enhanced beam scanning stability.
Regarding claim 4, Field in view of Campbell and Fritsch teaches the object tracking system of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the driving unit comprises: a converting member configured to convert rotational force of the power generation unit into a linear motion (Fritsch, ¶¶ 6, 33, cross slider provides linear motion driven by the rotation of the motor’s drive shaft); and a connecting member configured to connect the optical transmitting unit and the converting member to transmit power to the optical transmitting unit (Field, Fig. 3, connecting member 64; Col. 5:40-42, “actuator 60 is pivotably attached to the back of the scanner… at 64”; Col. 5:26-32, linear actuator drives mechanical power to the optical transmitting unit to control elevation angle).
Regarding claim 5, Field in view of Campbell and Fritsch teaches the object tracking system of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein the optical transmitting unit is rotated around a pivot (Field, Fig. 3, hinge 58; Col. 5:25-27, “pivotally mounted on the platform 46 by hinges 58”) wherein one end of the optical transmitting unit is connected to the connecting member (Field, Col. 5:40-43, “actuator 60 is pivotably attached to the back of the scanner… at 64”), and when the power generation unit is rotated in one direction (Fritsch, ¶¶ 6, 26, rotation of motor to drive the linear actuator), the other end of the optical transmitting unit reciprocates within a predetermined angle range (Field, Col. 5:45-51, tilting the optical transmitting unit by the linear actuator with elevation angle E of Fig. 1, as previously combined with the scan angle range Θmin and Θmax of Campbell).
Regarding claim 6, Field in view of Campbell and Fritsch teaches the object tracking system of claim 5, and further teaches: a rotating member (Fritsch, ¶ 6, “eccentric drive pin”) configured to be driven along a rotation path of radius R from a rotation center G1 of the power generation unit (Fritsch, ¶ 37, “rotating on a circle... displacement to the side is the radius to the center of the motor axis I”), wherein the converting member and the connecting member are moved by a displacement S in a first axis (x-axis) around the pivot according to a position of the rotating member (Where -R ≤ S ≤ R) (Fritsch, ¶ 37, radius R provides and linear displacement d=±R along a first axis in the direction of linear displacement, the converting member (cross slider of Fritsch) as attached to connecting member (64 of Field) displaces d=±R from driving the drive pin along rotation path of radius R, causing rotation of the optical transmitting unit (54 of Field) around the pivot (58 of Field)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field in view of Campbell further in view of Binder (US20190154439A1).
Regarding claim 8, Field in view of Campbell teaches the object tracking system of claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the power generation unit […] whose direction is changed within a predetermined angle range (Field, Col. 5:26-32, “actuator motor” as previously combined with Campbell, Fig. 20, angle range Θmin and Θmax). Field in view of Campbell does not teach: [the power generation unit] “is a servo motor.” However, Binder teaches the limitation in ¶ 448. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power generation unit of Field in view of Campbell with the teachings of Binder with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide active error correction and greater control over actuation (Campell, ¶ 448), thereby yielding a system with improved scanning accuracy and reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the optical emitter device according to claim 6, further comprising a control unit configured to control the driving unit, wherein the control unit calculates a sweep angle ψ rotated by the other end of the optical transmitting unit by the following Equation:
ψ
=
tan
-
1
R
P
sin
ω
t
(where ψ = Sweep angle of other end of optical transmitting unit around pivot, R = Radius rotation of rotating member, P = Displacement of pivot to second axis (y-axis) based on G1 of power generation unit, ω = Angular velocity of power generation unit = 2π * Frequency, and t = Operating time of power generation unit.)
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the optical emitter device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit calculates the sweep angle ψ based on a time difference between a time when the optical transmitting unit detects an object when sweeping in one direction and a time when the optical transmitting unit detects an object when sweeping in another direction.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Li (CN105093521A) discloses an object tracker which scans through the translation of motor rotation to linear displacement, and the subsequent angular scanning through an L-shaped connecting block. However, Li fails to teach the specific sweep angle relational equation of claim 7, and is further silent towards the determination of sweep angle based on a difference between object detection times of between different sweep directions as recited in claim 10. Jones (US3644043A) discloses an object tracker employing a rotating mirror for scanning controlled by servo units, however, fails to disclose the specific sweep angle relationship of claim 7, and further remains silent towards calculating a sweep angle based on a difference between object detection times from different directional sweeps of claim 10. Pennecot (US9063549B1) discloses a plurality of optical transmitting units directed for scanning at different scan axes, however fails to teach the specific determination of sweep angle as recited in claims 7 and 10.
In sum, the prior art references of record teach or suggest various aspects of the invention, none, neither alone or in combination, teach or suggest all the claimed limitation as specifically recited in the claim. Therefore, claims 7 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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