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
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 03/10/2023. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a translation of the CN 2023-10237917.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 11/18/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a translation of CN-2017-107424188 has not been provided. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following informalities:
Reference character “300” has been used to designate both the electronic device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0026) and the camera module (Paragraph 0026). Previously, reference character “200” was used to designate the camera module.
Reference character “L2” has been used to designate both detection light and collimated detection light. Prior to Paragraph 0017, reference character “L1” was used for detection light. In Paragraph 0017, however, Applicant states “The collimated detection light is called detection light L2.” This confounds their definitions and labels and thereby confuses interpreting the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Often, it is unclear which embodiment is implied by the phrase “In this embodiment.” Applicant is advised to explicitly reference embodiments when 1) discussing multiple embodiments in a paragraph, or 2) when discussing a single embodiment after a paragraph in which multiple embodiments were discussed.
Distinct definitions and labels for “detection light” and “collimated detection light” were established prior to Paragraph 0017. In Paragraph 0017, however, Applicant stated “The collimated detection light is called detection light L2.” This confounds their definitions and labels and thereby inhibits clarity of the text.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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;
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
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or generic placeholders but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A deflecting diffraction module on a side of the collimating lens module facing away the light source module, the deflecting diffraction module configured to superimpose groups of the detection light after collimated by the collimating lens module, to be an array of detection light spots in claims 1 and 8;
a deflecting element, the deflecting element is configured to deflect the beams of the detection light in different directions after collimated by the collimating lens module in claims 4 and 11; and
a receiving module configured for collecting the detection light reflected by the target object in real-time, and further for obtaining one or more of three-dimensional position information, image information, and size information of the target object in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In order to determine compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Federal Circuit developed a framework of factors in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue." Consistent with Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Wands factors continue to provide a framework for assessing enablement in a utility application or patent, regardless of technology area. See Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 89 FR 1563 (January 10, 2024). These factors include, but are not limited to (See MPEP 2164.01(a)):
The breadth of the claims;
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The existence of working examples; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 15, limitation 3 recites a processor configured for controlling the camera module and the memory, and processing information exchanged between the electronic device and outside world during an interaction process (Limitation 3). Using lidars inherently requires processors, making their integration into lidar systems of ordinary skill. The capabilities of the claimed processor, however, are not described in sufficient detail (Paragraph 0027). The following aspects of the processor’s capabilities are not clear:
Controlling the camera inherently entails transmitting light, receiving reflections of said light, and all related details such as time resolution and transmission time. Additionally, controlling the camera commonly entails changing the field of view (FoV). However, Applicant did not explicitly address changing FoV, so whether controlling the camera includes changing FoV is unclear. Methods for changing FoV include:
Moving the entire camera,
Angling the deflecting diffraction module, and
Angling individual elements of the deflecting diffraction module.
For examination, controlling the camera includes the ability to steer the beams of light by moving at least the deflecting element.
Exchanging information with the outside world includes:
Remotely upload/download data,
Sending instructions to remotely controlling camera, or
Pushing software updates or automated controls.
Exchanging information with the outside world is therefore not clearly defined. For examination, exchanging information with the outside world constitutes remotely controlling the camera.
An interaction process includes at least one of the following interactions:
The emitted light reflecting off the target,
The camera imaging the target,
The processor controlling the camera, and
The electronic device exchanging information with the outside world.
These interactions possess distinct characteristics from one another, so what constitutes an interaction process is unclear. For examination, an interaction process comprises exchanging information with the outside world, i.e. remotely controlling the camera.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 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, Applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the deflecting diffraction module can reasonably be assumed to comprise at least one diffraction element. Applicant, however, states the diffraction element 53 can be removed and the deflecting diffraction module 50 does not include any diffraction element (Paragraph 0018), which creates ambiguity about what a deflecting diffraction module comprises. What Applicant regards as a deflecting diffraction module is therefore unclear, rendering Claim 1 indefinite. The rejection further applies to independent Claim 8. Dependent Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 15 fail to resolve the issue regarding the deflecting diffraction module present in Claims 1 and 8 and are thus summarily rejected. Dependent Claims 7 and 14 introduce a diffraction element and thereby resolve issues regarding the deflecting diffraction module. For examination, since diffraction is a type of deflection, a deflecting diffraction module comprises at least a deflecting element.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant states the receiving module 210 may include a filter (not shown), an optical lens (not shown), and a depth sensor (not shown) (Paragraph 0026). This listing of components is considered in the alternative, meaning these components may separately or in combination comprise a receiving module. Furthermore, the listing of components is non-exhaustive, so a receiving module can reasonably be assumed to be any set of components that separately or in combination can obtain one or more of three-dimensional position information, image information, and size information of the target object. What Applicant regards as a receiving module is therefore unclear, rendering Claim 8 indefinite. Dependent Claims 9-15 fail to resolve the issues present in Claim 8 and are thus summarily rejected. For examination, a receiving module is configured to provide vector (i.e. non-scalar) output.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant claims the electronic device has a processor configured for controlling the camera module and the memory, and processing information exchanged between the electronic device and outside world during an interaction process (Limitation 3). What Applicant regards as
controlling the camera,
exchanging information with the outside world, and
an interaction process
is neither defined nor described in the claims or the written specification, rendering the capabilities of the processor are unclear. Furthermore, such capabilities do not limit the scope of the limitation or claim (Brookhill-Wilk 1 LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1132, Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, what Applicant regards as a processor acting in the claimed capacity is unclear, thereby rendering claim 15 indefinite. See §18 regarding interpretation for examination.
Appropriate correction is required. If Applicant chooses to amend the claims to include and clearly define any one or more of
a deflecting diffraction module optionally lacking a diffraction element,
the receiving module in Claim 8,
the processor with claimed capabilities in Claim 15,
Applicant is advised to submit at least one drawing exhibiting said features in detail and to amend the written description regarding said features.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keilaf (WO 2018/055449 A2). For clarity, claim language is bolded.
Regarding Claim 1, Keilaf discloses a light-emitting module (Figs. 2A-D, Paragraphs 0126-0143) comprising:
a light source module comprising at least two light source arrays, each of the at least two light source arrays configured to emit beams of detection light (Figs. 2A-B, Paragraphs 0127-0134: Collection of laser diodes 202A or projecting units 102);
a collimating lens module on an output side of the light source module and comprising a plurality of collimating lenses configured for collimating the beams of detection light (Figs. 2A-B, Paragraph 0128: Collection of optical components 202B, which may include collimation lenses); and
a deflecting diffraction module on a side of the collimating lens module facing away the light source module, the deflecting diffraction module configured to superimpose groups of the detection light after collimated by the collimating lens module, to be an array of detection light spots (Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0115: Deflector 114 includes anything that can make light deviate from its original path, e.g. a prism, LCD, polarization grating. Deflector may include a plurality of optical components, e.g. a deflecting element and a diffracting element).
Regarding Claim 8, Keilaf discloses a camera module (Figs. 2A-D, Paragraphs 0126-0143) comprising:
a light-emitting module configured to emit an array of detection light spots towards a target object, the light-emitting module comprising: a light source module comprising at least two light source arrays, each of the at least two light source arrays configured to emit beams of detection light; a collimating lens module on an output side of the light source module and comprising a plurality of collimating lenses; and a deflecting diffraction module on a side of the collimating lens module facing away the light source module, the deflecting diffraction module configured to superimpose groups of the detection light after collimated by the collimating lens module, to be an array of detection light spots (See rejection of Claim 1, §26); and
a receiving module configured for collecting the detection light reflected by the target object in real-time, and further for obtaining one or more of three-dimensional position information, image information, and size information of the target object (Figs. 1A and 4A-B, Paragraphs 0121 and 0157-162: Sensing unit 106 may include at least one sensor 116, each of which can be a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array of pixels 410, thereby outputting vector data).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Keilaf further discloses wherein the at least two light source arrays are configured to emit the beams of the detection light having different wavelengths or a same wavelength (Figs. 2B-C, Paragraphs 134-135: Difference light sources 112 may emit the same or different wavelengths. Projecting units 102 each comprise at least one light source 112 and thereby emit at least one wavelength).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Keilaf further discloses wherein each of the plurality of collimating lenses corresponds to one of the at least two light source arrays and collimate the detection light from the one of the at least two light source arrays (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0128: Optical assembly 202B in each light source 112 may collimate light).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Keilaf further discloses wherein the deflecting diffraction module comprises a deflecting element, the deflecting element is configured to deflect the beams of the detection light in different directions after collimated by the collimating lens module (Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0115: Deflector 114 includes anything that can make light deviate from its original path, e.g. a prism, LCD, polarization grating. Deflector may include a plurality of optical components, e.g. a deflecting element and a diffracting element).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Keilaf further discloses wherein
the deflecting element comprises a deflecting prism corresponding to all of the at least two light source arrays (Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0115: Deflector 114 includes anything that can make light deviate from its original path, e.g. a prism, LCD, polarization grating. Deflector may include a plurality of optical components, e.g. a deflecting element and a diffracting element); or
the deflecting element comprises a plurality of wedges, and each of the plurality of wedges corresponds to one of the at least two light source arrays (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0128: Optical assembly 202B in each light source 112 may manipulate the light emitted by laser diode 202A. Deflection is a type of manipulation).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Keilaf further discloses wherein the deflecting diffraction module further comprises an anti-reflective film, the anti-reflective film covers a surface of the deflecting element (Fig. 4A, Paragraph 0782: The anti-reflective element 9380 may be parallel to the window 124. The anti-reflective element can come between deflector and window relative to the direction of light propagation, thereby covering the deflector).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Keilaf further discloses wherein the deflecting diffraction module further comprises a diffraction element,
the diffraction element is a diffractive optical element corresponding to all of the at least two light source arrays (Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0115: Deflector 114 includes anything that can make light deviate from its original path, e.g. a prism, LCD, polarization grating. Deflector may include a plurality of optical components, e.g. a deflecting element and a diffracting element), or
the diffraction element comprises a plurality of diffraction plates, and each of the plurality of diffraction plates corresponds to one of the at least two light source arrays (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0128: optional optical assembly 202B in each light source 112 may manipulate the light emitted by laser diode 202A. Diffraction is a type of manipulation).
Regarding Claim 15, Keilaf discloses an electronic device comprising (Paragraphs 0121-0143, Figs. 1A and 2A-D):
the camera module of claim 9 configured for collecting information (See rejection for Claim 9, §28);
a memory for storing information (Paragraphs 014 and 0120: Memory stores optical budget. Memory may be integrated or embedded, RAM, ROM, etc.); and
a processor configured for controlling the camera module and the memory, and processing information exchanged between the electronic device and outside world during an interaction process (Paragraphs 121, Fig. 1A: Processing unit 108 may include at least one processor 118, which may coordinate operation of the at least one light source 112 with the movement of at least one light deflector 114 to scan a field of view 120; Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0129: Host 210 may be remote, on-board, or anything connected to and able to control lidar system).
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to Keilaf and Applicant-provided prior art, the Examiner identified the following relevant prior art:
Li (WO 2022/261517 A1) teaches the following:
Beam splitters for making multiple beams with equivalent intensity.
Depth sensors for receiving multiple beams of reflected light.
Anti-reflective coatings for eliminating reflections from internal optical elements (Paragraph 00112, Fig. 8A: “In one example, the portion of the facet 842 that forms output light beam 832D is coated with an anti-reflection coating… As a result, internal light beam 833D may or may not exist”).
Molnar (US 10983216 B2) teaches the following:
Depth detectors for 3D and 4D lidar systems.
Deflecting and/or diffraction elements in 3D and 4D lidar systems.
Popovich (WO 2016/116733 A1) teaches diffraction elements in lidar systems.
Xiao (US 2019/0273906 A1) teaches VCSEL arrays with diffraction elements as Applicant describes.
Rudy (US 2020/0232618 A1) and Raring (US 2022/0042672 A1) teach anti-reflective coatings on various surfaces to promote a preferred direction of light propagation.
Ferreira (US 11,726,184 B2, Prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)) teaches lidar systems comprehensively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:15 a.m. - 5:15 p.m.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights