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 Interpretation
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 limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
-- “a transmitter for emitting a first laser beam …”; “a receiver for receiving a first reflection …”; “a data analysis and interpretation unit for detecting a presence of water, snow, or ice ….”, in claim 11;
-- “a control and data acquisition unit for adjusting a field of view …”, in claim 18;
-- “a control and data acquisition unit for informing …”, in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 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 avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 10, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, (KR 101307178) in view of Sebastian, (US-PGPUB 20230206653)
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses a method of determining road conditions, (see at least: Abstract, an identification method of a road weather condition), the method comprising:
emitting, by a transmitter of a
receiving, by a receiver of the detecting a plurality of scattering signals backscattered by the first laser light and the second laser light from the road surface from a detector; and from Par. 0040, the road surface weather observation device (100) comprises a detection 130, [i.e., receiving, by a receiver of the
detecting a presence of water, snow, or ice on the road surface based on an intensity of the first reflection and an intensity of the second reflection, (see at least: Fig. 1, and Page 5, last paragraph, calculating a CR value, which is an intensity ratio (Color Ratio) of the scattering signals, from an analyzer to measure the weather condition for the road surface, [i.e., detecting a presence of water, snow, or ice on the road surface, “measure the weather condition for the road surface”, based on an intensity of the first reflection and an intensity of the second reflection, “intensity ratio
(Color Ratio) of the scattering signals implicitly reflected from the first laser light and the second laser light”]).
Kim does not expressly disclose light detection and ranging (lidar) system.
However, Sebastian discloses using a LIDAR sensor, (see at least: Par. 0015, collecting a three-dimensional (3-D) point cloud from a LiDAR sensor; and from Par. 0033, simultaneously classifying weather and road conditions from a 3-D LiDAR point cloud, [i.e., implicitly using the LIDAR sensor for classifying road conditions from a 3-D LiDAR point cloud]).
Kim and Sebastian are combinable because they are both concerned with determining road condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Kim, to use the LIDAR sensor, as though by Sebastian, in order to classify road conditions from a 3-D LiDAR point cloud, (Par. 0033).
In regards to claim 2, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Sebastian further discloses wherein the lidar system is in communication with a vehicle control system, (Sebastian, see at least: Fig. 1, Par. 0037, using a point cloud obtained by a 3-D LiDAR sensor included in a vehicle, [i.e., the LiDAR sensor is implicitly in communication with a vehicle control system]).
In regards to claim 3, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein the first reflection comprises a first reflectance and the second reflection comprises a second reflectance, (see at least: Par. 0013, and 0055-0056, using two detectors to measure the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths (color) that are backscattered after striking a road surface, [i.e., wherein the first reflection comprises a first reflectance and the second reflection comprises a second reflectance, “implicit by measuring the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths that are backscattered after striking a road surface, (Iλ1: first reflectance, and Iλ2: second reflectance)]).
Kim further discloses that the power supply (160) can supply power of a magnitude such that the intensity ratio CR1 for a dry road surface is n times greater than the intensity ratio CR2 for a wet road surface (where n is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1, where n is preferably a large value), [i.e., CR1> n. CR2, accordingly the first reflectance Iλ1 and the second reflectance Iλ2 differ by certain percentage for dry condition and another percentage for the wet condition], (Kim, Par. 0060)
The combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole wherein the first reflectance and the second reflectance differ by less than 50% when the road surface is dry and by more than 50% when the road surface is covered with the water, the snow, or the ice.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first reflectance and the second reflectance differ by less than 50% when the road surface is dry and by more than 50% when the road surface is covered with the water, the snow, or the ice. Applicant has not disclosed that difference of the first reflectance and the second reflectance difference by less than 50% for the dry condition, and the difference more than 50% for the water, the snow, or the ice condition, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the intensity ratio CR1 for a dry road surface being n times greater than the intensity ratio CR2 for a wet road surface, as though by Kim, or the claimed difference of the first reflectance and the second reflectance by less than 50% for the dry condition, and the difference more than 50% for the water, the snow, or the ice condition, because both of the calculations perform the same function of making it easier to distinguish between the road conditions, (Kim, Par. 0060).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the road surface is dry when the ratio is from about 0.85 to about 1.4, the road surface is covered in the ice when the ratio is from about 0.31 to about 0.38, the road surface is covered in the snow when the ratio is from about 0.0 to about 0.16, or the road surface is covered in frost when the ratio is from about 0.21 to about 0.29. Applicant has not disclosed that having the ratio from about 0.85 to about 1.4 for dry road condition, the ratio from about 0.85 to about 1.4 for the ice road condition, the ratio from about 0.31 to about 0.38 for snow condition, or the ratio is from about 0.21 to about 0.29 for the frost condition, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the intensity ratio (Color Ratio) of the scattering signals, for measuring the weather condition for the road surface, as though by Kim, or the claimed ratio for the dry, ice, snow, or frost, road condition, because both ratio values perform the same function of measuring the weather condition for the road surface, (Kim, Page 5, last paragraph), to thereby distinguishing the weather condition of a road surface, (Kim, Page 4, 9th paragraph).
In regards to claim 4, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein the first waveband is centered at about 905 nm and the second waveband is centered at about 1550 nm, (see at least: Par. 0043, determining a first wavelength, which is one wavelength with a center wavelength of 900 nm to 920 nm, and a second wavelength, which is one wavelength with a center wavelength of 1500 nm to 1590 nm, [i.e., the first waveband is centered at about 905 nm, “implicitly within range of 900 nm to 920 nm”, and the second waveband is centered at about 1550 nm, “implicitly within range of1500 nm to 1590 nm”]).
In regards to claim 5, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein the road surface comprises at least one of asphalt, concrete, stone, dirt, or gravel, (see at least: Fig. 6, and Par. 0109, … laser diode beam scattered from an asphalt road surface, which implicit that the road surface comprises asphalt)
In regards to claim 6, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein detecting the presence of the water, the snow, or the ice comprises: calculating a first reflectance for the first reflection and a second reflectance for the second reflection; and calculating a ratio of the second reflectance to the first reflectance, (see at least: Par. 0013, and 0055-0056, using two detectors to measure the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths (color) that are backscattered after striking a road surface, [i.e., calculating a first reflectance for the first reflection and a second reflectance for the second reflection, “implicit by measuring the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths that are backscattered after striking a road surface”], and uses the CR (Color Ratio) value, which is the intensity ratio (Iλ1/Iλ2 or Iλ2/Iλ1) for a plurality of scattered signals, [i.e., calculating a ratio of the second reflectance to the first reflectance, “implicit by calculating the intensity ratio (Iλ1/Iλ2) for a plurality of scattered signals”]).
In regards to claim 7, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 6.
Kim further discloses determining when at least one of: the road surface is dry, the road surface is covered in the ice, the road surface is covered in the snow, or the road surface is covered in frost, based on the intensity ratio (Color Ratio) of the scattering signals, (see at least: Fig. 1, and Page 5, last paragraph, calculating a CR value, which is an intensity ratio (Color Ratio) of the scattering signals, from an analyzer to measure the weather condition for the road surface; and from Par. 0063, the road weather observation device (100) uses a new value, the road weather (RW) value, to distinguish between various weather conditions (dry, wet, frozen, damp, snow, slush, etc.)).
The combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of: the road surface is dry when the ratio is from about 0.85 to about 1.4, the road surface is covered in the ice when the ratio is from about 0.31 to about 0.38, the road surface is covered in the snow when the ratio is from about 0.0 to about 0.16, or the road surface is covered in frost when the ratio is from about 0.21 to about 0.29.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the road surface is dry when the ratio is from about 0.85 to about 1.4, the road surface is covered in the ice when the ratio is from about 0.31 to about 0.38, the road surface is covered in the snow when the ratio is from about 0.0 to about 0.16, or the road surface is covered in frost when the ratio is from about 0.21 to about 0.29. Applicant has not disclosed that having the ratio from about 0.85 to about 1.4 for dry road condition, the ratio from about 0.85 to about 1.4 for the ice road condition, the ratio from about 0.31 to about 0.38 for snow condition, or the ratio is from about 0.21 to about 0.29 for the frost condition, provides an advantage, be used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the intensity ratio (Color Ratio) of the scattering signals, for measuring the weather condition for the road surface, as though by Kim, or the claimed ratio for the dry, ice, snow, or frost, road condition, because both ratio values perform the same function of measuring the weather condition for the road surface, (Kim, Page 5, last paragraph), to thereby distinguishing the weather condition of a road surface, (Kim, Page 4, 9th paragraph).
In regards to claim 10, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Sebastian further discloses informing a vehicle control system about the presence of the water, the snow, or the ice on the road surface, (Sebastian, see at least: Par. 0037, driving environment classification model pre-trained to classify a driving environment may simultaneously classify a weather condition and/or a road condition by using a point cloud obtained by a 3-D LiDAR sensor included in a vehicle; and from Par. 0042, the communications interface may stream the classification results to vehicle control logic, [i.e., informing a vehicle control system about the presence of the water, the snow, or the ice on the road surface, “implicit by the communications interface, which may stream the road condition classification results to the vehicle control logic”]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 11 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “a light detection and ranging (lidar) system for determining road conditions”. However, Sebastian discloses the “light detection and ranging (lidar) system for determining road conditions”, (see at least: Par. 0012, “driving environment classification device or LIDAR system”; and from Par. 0039, the driving environment classification device, “LIDAR system”, may classify various road condition classes, “implicitly the determining road conditions”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 2. As such, claim 12 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 13 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 14 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 15 is rejected for at least similar rational.
In regards to claim 16, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 11.
Kim further discloses wherein detecting the presence of the water, the snow, or the ice comprises: calculating a first reflectance for the first reflection and a second reflectance for the second reflection; and calculating a ratio of the first reflectance to the second reflectance, (see at least: Par. 0013, and 0055-0056, using two detectors to measure the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths (color) that are backscattered after striking a road surface, [i.e., calculating a first reflectance for the first reflection and a second reflectance for the second reflection, “implicit by measuring the scattered signals of optical signals of two wavelengths that are backscattered after striking a road surface”], and uses the CR (Color Ratio) value, which is the intensity ratio (Iλ1/Iλ2 or Iλ2/Iλ1) for a plurality of scattered signals, [i.e., calculating a ratio of the second reflectance to the first reflectance, “implicit by calculating the intensity ratio (Iλ2/Iλ1) for a plurality of scattered signals”]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 7. As such, claim 17 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 10. As such, claim 20 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Sebastian, as applied to claim 1 above; and further in view of Ye et al, (US-PGPUB 20200348402)
In regards to claim 8, the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combine teaching Kim and Sebastian as whole does not expressly disclose adjusting a field of view of the lidar system in response to the detection of the water, the snow, or the ice.
However, Ye et al discloses adjusting a field of view of the lidar system in response to the detection of the water, the snow, or the ice, (see at least: 0106, the current road condition information is obtained in real time, and then the size of the field of view of the lidar is adjusted in real time according to the obtained road condition information; and from Par. 0029, road condition information may include information about road conditions, for example, rain, snow or fog conditions on a road, and rugged road conditions, [i.e., adjusting a field of view of the lidar system, “implicit by adjusting the field of view’s size of the lidar”, in response to the detection of the water, the snow, or the ice, “according to the obtained road condition information including rain, snow or fog conditions on a road, and rugged road conditions”]).
Kim, Sebastian, and Ye et al are combinable because they are all concerned with determining road condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Kim and Sebastian, to adjust the field of view’s size of the lidar, as though by Ye et al, in order to adapt the detection device to diversified road conditions and to improve the detection accuracy of the detection device, (Ye et al, Par. 0009)
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 8. As such, claim 18 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Sebastian, and Ye et al, as applied to claim 8 above; and further in view of Celan et al, (US-PGPUB 20210309269)
In regards to claim 9, the combine teaching Kim, Sebastian, and Ye et al as whole discloses the limitations of claim 8.
The combine teaching Kim, Sebastian, and Ye et al as whole does not expressly disclose wherein adjusting the field of view comprises adjusting a distance between the vehicle and a location where the first laser beam and the second laser beam reflect off the road surface.
However, Celan et al discloses adjusting a distance between the vehicle and a location where the first laser beam and the second laser beam reflect off the road surface, (see at least: Par. 0009, the change in the distance between the vehicle and the at least one reflection point is ascertained).
Kim, Sebastian, Ye et al, and Celan are combinable because they are all concerned with determining road condition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Kim, Sebastian, and Ye et al, in order to produce movement information describing a movement of a vehicle on the basis of the change in the distance, (Celan, Par. 0009)
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 9. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 01/06/2025