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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/19/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-9 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.
Independent claim 1, 8 and 9 recite “…grouping all parallel channels of a LiDAR based on physical intervals between the parallel channels…”.
In LIDAR technology, the term channel is used to describe a distinct frequency or wavelength of the transmitted signal.
However, based on figure 6 of United States Patent Number 12,092,760, it appears that a group of parallel channels based on physical intervals corresponds to a group of emitters having a dimensional spacing.
Therefore, clarification of what is being defined by the limitation reciting “…grouping all parallel channels of a LiDAR based on physical intervals between the parallel channels…” is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of claim interpretation with respect to cited prior art, the limitation reciting “…grouping all parallel channels of a LiDAR based on physical intervals between the parallel channels…” is assumed to correspond to a group of emitters having a dimensional spacing.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquiere et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0309955) in view of Shi et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0035756).
With respect to claim 1, Laflaquiere et al disclose: A LiDAR controlling method [ taught by figure 1 ], comprising: grouping all parallel channels of a LiDAR based on physical intervals between the parallel channels, wherein a physical interval between any adjacent parallel channels in a same group is greater than or equal to a preset physical interval [ taught by the spacing of emitter groups (50A, 50B and 50C) paragraph [0036] ]; and controlling parallel channels in different groups to emit detection signals based on an intergroup emission policy, wherein the intergroup emission policy is to control a time interval between emission times of the parallel channels in the different groups to be a first preset time interval [ taught by paragraph [0037] ], and the first preset time interval is greater than a recovery time of a sensor between two adjacent signal emissions.
Laflaquiere et al does not explicitly disclose the first preset time interval is greater than a recovery time of a sensor between two adjacent signal emissions.
Paragraph [0082] of Shi et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have controlled the start emission time of parallel channels in order to prevent crosstalk between the channels – preventing crosstalk inherently requires a time interval greater that recovery time of a sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of Laflaquiere et al to use timing control method of Shi et al, when seeking to reduce crosstalk.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected by the combination of Laflaquiere et al and Shi et al, as applied to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten or argued 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights