CTNF 18/275,279 CTNF 99487 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-11 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 8/1/2023, 11/19/2024, and 3/3/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line recites the limitation of “a distribution of the distance.” However, “a distribution of the distance” is already recited in line 4 of the claim. This can be corrected to recite --the distribution of the distance --. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 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 limitations 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 limitations are: “abnormality detection unit” in claims 1-8 “type presumption unit” in claim 8 The limitation of “abnormality detection unit” is modified by functional language, but is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for determining the presence or absence of an abnormality based on measured intensity and/or distance of reflected light , and is therefore being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specifications. The specifications in paragraph [0022] – [0023] describe that the abnormality detection unit analyzes the measurement data. Fig. 10 shows that the abnormality detection device, which contains the abnormality detection unit, is a configuration of hardware. An abnormality detection unit is interpreted to be general hardware that is used in general lidar systems to analyze data that has been collected by the lidar device. The limitation of “type presumption unit” is modified by functional language, but is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts, for presuming a type of a type of object based on distance distribution , and is therefore being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specifications. Based on paragraphs [0031] and [0032] of the specifications, the control unit is what determines the presence or absence of an abnormality based on a presumption on the type and shape of the object. Because this is preformed by a controller, the “type presumption unit” is being interpreted to be general hardware and software capable of analyzing data. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-34-01 Claims 3 and 4 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 3 : Claim 3 recites that the abnormality detection unit makes a determination when “a variation of the at least one within one scan lies within a reference range.” It is unclear what variation is supposed to lie within a reference range. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted to read --when a variation of the at least one of intensity of the reflected light and the distance within one scan lies within a reference range--. Regarding Claim 4 : Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites that the abnormality detection device further [comprises]: the light source, the control unit; the light receiving unit; and the data generation unit . However, the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 already comprises the light source (claim 1, line 3); the control unit (claim 1, line 4); the light receiving unit (claim 1, line 6); and the data generation unit (claim 1, line 7). Therefore, claim 9 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Missbach (DE 102019111852 B3) . Regarding Claim 1: Missbach discloses an abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality of a measurement device (Fig. 1) comprising : a light source (Fig. 1); a control unit that repeatedly performs scanning with light from the light source in a predetermined range (Fig. 1, deflection unit 18 + motor 28; [0031]), a light receiving unit that detects reflected light of the light (Fig. 1), and a data generation unit that computed a distance to a reflection point of the reflected light using the reflected light (Fig. 1, evaluation unit 36; [0032]), the abnormality detection device comprising an abnormality detection unit that determines presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit by using at least one of intensity of the reflected light and the distance ([0036] if distance to the reference target does not match the expected distance, there is an error; [0039] if the intensity distribution does not match the expected value, there is an issue; [0025]). Regarding Claim 2 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 . Missbach further discloses wherein the abnormality detection unit determines presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit by using at least one of the intensity of the reflected light and the distance within one scan ([0036] this test is carried out once per revolution). Regarding Claim 3 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 2 . Missbach further discloses wherein the abnormality detection unit determines that the control unit is abnormal when a variation of the at least one [intensity lies] within a reference range ([0038] there is an abnormality when the intensity has a uniform distribution over the angular range). Regarding Claim 4 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 3 . Missbach further discloses wherein the abnormality detection unit determines that the control unit is abnormal when the variation of both of the intensity of the reflected light and the distance lies within a reference range ([0038] there is an abnormality when the intensity does not vary over the angular range; [0033] if a safety related object enters a protected area, there is an abnormality. When incident on an object, adjacent reflection points will yield similar distance measurements. If an object is too close, many adjacent reflection points will have similar distances, and the measured distance will indicate that the object is too close). Regarding Claim 5 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 2 . Missbach further discloses wherein the abnormality detection unit determines that the control unit is abnormal when all values within one scan lie within a reference range, in at least one of the intensity of the reflected light and the distance ([0038] there is an abnormality when the intensity has a uniform distribution over the angular range). Regarding Claim 7 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 . Missbach further discloses wherein the abnormality detection unit does not determine that the control unit is abnormal, in a case where the distance is equal to or less than a reference value ([0036]). Regarding Claim 9 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 . Missbach further discloses further comprising: the light source; the control unit; the light receiving unit; and the data generation unit (Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 10 : Claim 10 is essentially the method version of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding Claim 11 : Missbach discloses a non transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as an abnormality detection device that detects an abnormality of a measurement device (Fig. 1 and [0031] – [0033]) comprising a light source (Fig. 1); a control unit that repeatedly performs scanning with light from the light source in a predetermined range (Fig. 1, deflection unit 18 + motor 28; [0031]), a light receiving unit that detects reflected light of the light (Fig. 1), and a data generation unit that computed a distance to a reflection point of the reflected light using the reflected light (Fig. 1, evaluation unit 36; [0032]), the program causing the computer to perform determining presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit by using at least one of intensity of the reflected light and the distance within one scan ([0036] if distance to the reference target does not match the expected distance, there is an error; [0039] if the intensity distribution does not match the expected value, there is an issue) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missbach (DE 102019111852 B3) in view of McMichael (US 20190385025 A1) . Regarding Claim 6 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 . Missbach does not expressly disclose that “the abnormality detection unit determines a distribution of at least one of the intensity of the reflected light and the distance in each of a plurality of the scans , and determines presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit by using a comparison result of the distribution between each of the plurality of scans .” McMichael teaches a lidar system that determines the presence of an obstruction by comparing measurements taken in a sequence of frames ([0097] and [0099]). If there is a feature in the sequence of images that remains the same and fails to move in a manner consistent with the other features of the image, then an abnormality, like an obstruction, is detected ([0097] - [0099]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abnormality detection disclosed by Missbach, such that measurements in a plurality of scans are compared to identify an abnormality in the device, as taught by McMichael. This modification would be applying the known technique of comparing a plurality of images to identify an abnormality, to the known measurement device disclosed by Missbach, to yield the predictable result of identifying abnormalities. Regarding Claim 8 : Missbach discloses the abnormality detection device according to claim 1 . Missbach further discloses further comprising a type presumption unit that presumes a type of a target object having a reflection point by using a distribution of the distance ([0013] and [0034] distance to reference target is measured, target is identified), wherein the abnormality detection unit determines presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit by using a presumption result on the type, presumed based on the distribution of the distance ([0023] – [0025]). Missbach does not expressly teach that the presence or absence of an abnormality of the control unit is also determined using a shape of the target object also. McMichael teaches a lidar system that also uses a shape of the target object to determine presence or absence of an abnormality ([0087] based on the measurements, water droplets on the sensor window can be identified, and their size can also be determined). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abnormality detection disclosed by Missbach, by incorporating the teachings of McMichael, such that a shape of the target object is also used to determine the presence or absence of an abnormality. This would be beneficial because the shape of the measured target object can be used to determine what action to take to mitigate this abnormality. In the case of water droplets being identified, the size of the water droplets is also taken into consideration when identifying an obstruction; based on the size of the water droplets, a different course of action will be taken (McMichael, [0087]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm. 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 at (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. /ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/275,279 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645