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 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 1-20 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.
Limitation “adjusting the time interval encoding at a next transmission according to a distribution of an interference signal” is unclear. What does it mean “according” in this context. Examiner interpretation is changing coding in order to reduce interference.
Claims 8 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. Limitation “determining that the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with when relative differences between peak intensities of the plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence and peak intensities of the plurality of pulses in the multi-pulse sequence are greater than a third tolerance threshold” it is unclear do all relative differences need to be above the threshold, also it is unclear what does it mean relative differences between peak intensities. Let us imagine we transmitted pulse train with amplitudes (10, 0, 5, 8,0, 15)(plurality of pulses) and received signal (7, 0, 4,7 0, 10)(valid pulses). What Applicant calls “relative difference”. Is it 10-7 ,5-4 , 8-7, 15-10 or is it 7-4 , 4-7 , 7-10, 4-10, and so on… From the claim it looks like 10-7 5-4 , 8-7, 15-10 is probably correct but this is not only differences which are possible it is also possible to take differences between all pulses such as difference 10-7, 10-4, 10-7 , 10-10 and then 5-7, 5-4, 5-7, 5-10 and so on. I is unclear how from that one will determine the interference.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 US 20180259645 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 12 D1 teaches
1, 12 A control method for a LiDAR, comprising:
transmitting a multi-pulse sequence with a time interval encoding;(fig. 11 1101)[0155]
receiving LiDAR echoes to determine whether the LiDAR echoes comprise a valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence;(fig. 11 RX)
when(in method claim 1 does not have patentable weight as conditional limitation) the LiDAR echoes comprises the valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence,(fig. 11 RX part 1130)
determining whether the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with according to a pulse characteristic of the valid echo pulse sequence[0191]; and
when(in method claim 1 does not have patentable weight as conditional limitation) the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with, adjusting the time interval encoding at a next transmission according to a distribution of an interference signal in the LiDAR echoes.[0193]
2, 13. The LiDAR of claim 12, further comprising:
an analog-to-digital conversion unit configured to perform an analog-to-digital conversion n the LiDAR echoes,[0102-0103]
wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to:
extract a plurality of echo pulse signals with peak intensities greater than an intensity threshold in the LiDAR echoes after the analog-to-digital conversion; and[0113]
when a time interval of the plurality of echo pulse signals matches a time interval of the multi-pulse sequence, determine the plurality of echo pulse signals as the valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence, and[0205]
wherein the interference signal in the LiDAR echoes comprises: (1) an echo pulse signal of the plurality of echo pulse signals with the peak intensities greater than the intensity threshold in the LiDAR echoes excluding the valid echo pulse sequence[0191], and (2) an interfered pulse of the valid echo pulse sequence.
4, 15. The LiDAR of claim 13, wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to:
when the LiDAR echoes comprise an echo pulse signal with a peak intensity greater than the intensity threshold and do not comprise the valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence, adjust the time interval encoding at the next transmission.[0193]
10, 19 The control method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting the time interval encoding at the next transmission according to the distribution of the interference signal in the LiDAR echoes, such that the valid echo pulse sequence generated by the reflection of the multi-pulse sequence at the next transmission is located outside a time period of the interference signal.[0193](implicit reducing interference)
11, 20 The control method of claim 10, further comprising:
transmitting the multi-pulse sequence with a preset time delay at the next transmission according to the distribution of the interference signal in the LiDAR echoes. [0193](implicit reducing interference)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20170219695 A1.
Regarding claims 3, 14 D1 teaches cross-correlation which is in general compares the different codes to each other and if they are within the tolerance (maximum cross correlation) then selects them
but does not explicitly say
3, 14. The LiDAR of claim 13, wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to:
calculate a difference between the time interval of the plurality of echo pulse signals and the time interval of the multi-pulse sequence, and
when the difference is less than a first tolerance threshold, determine the plurality of echo pulse signals as the valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence.
D2 teaches
calculate a difference between the time interval of the plurality of echo pulse signals and the time interval of the multi-pulse sequence, and[0074]
when the difference is less than a first tolerance threshold, determine the plurality of echo pulse signals as the valid echo pulse sequence corresponding to the multi-pulse sequence.[0074]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D2 in order to identify legitimate pulse codding.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20160003946 A1.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 16 D1 teaches identifying interference and using the width and intensity of the pulses [0141-0145] but does not teach while D3 teaches
5, 16. The LiDAR of claim 12, wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to:
determine whether the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with according to a similarity between a pulse width characteristic of a plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence and a pulse width characteristic of a plurality of pulses in the multi-pulse sequence;[abstract [0048,0049]]
and/or determine whether the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with according to a similarity between a peak intensity characteristic of the plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence and a peak intensity characteristic of the plurality of pulses in the multi-pulse sequence.
6. The control method of claim 5, further comprising:
determining that the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with when relative differences between pulse widths of the plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence and pulse widths of the plurality of pulses in the multi-pulse sequence are greater than a second tolerance threshold, and determining at least one interfered pulse according to the relative differences in pulse widths. [0048,0049]]
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D3 in order to identify interference as desired in D1.
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20160003946 A1 further in view of D4 CN 111880196 A.
Although D1 and D3 do not explicitly teach D4 teaches
7. The control method of claim 5, further comprising:
calculating a sum of absolute differences between any two of the pulse widths of the plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence; and(page 6)
when the sum of the absolute differences is greater than a second tolerance threshold, determining that the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with, and determining at least one interfered pulse according to the absolute differences. (page 6)
9. The control method of claim 5, further comprising:
calculating a sum of absolute differences between any two of the peak intensities of the plurality of pulses in the valid echo pulse sequence; and
when the sum of the absolute differences is greater than a third tolerance threshold, determining that the valid echo pulse sequence is interfered with, and determining at least one interfered pulse according to the absolute differences. (page 6 “ the sum of the absolute value of the difference between the length, width and height of the two, and taking the reciprocal of the sum of the absolute value as the shape correlation coefficient.”, length in this scenario is amplitude)
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 with teachings by D4 in order to calculate shape error of complicated signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights