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 Korea on 8/23/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0110608 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, it is suggested to make the following revision to improve clarity by correcting an editorial issue: the locking unit is configured to be switched [[to]] from the unlocked state to the locked state.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18588734 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a lidar system, a housing, an opening, a slidable lidar, guide brackets, a locking unit, and an unlocking unit/section, and the ‘734 reference application is narrower in scope than the ‘563 instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholer DE102022212986 in view of Stiehl US20220396216.
Regarding independent claim 1, Scholer discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A sensor system (Scholer; Fig. 1-7) for vehicles (Scholer; vehicle 1) comprising:
a housing (Scholer; housing 55) having an opening (Scholer; opening 53);
a sensor (Scholer; sensor camera unit 6) configured to slide in a first direction within the housing and selectively deployed to an outside of the housing through the opening (Scholer; sequence of Fig. 5-7; operation between a rest position 100 and an operating position 101);
guide brackets (Scholer; first and second slideways 72-73) disposed on first and second side surfaces of the sensor and configured to guide sliding movement of the sensor.
Scholer does not teach that the sensor is LiDAR; a locking unit configured to lock the LiDAR so that the deployed LiDAR is prevented from being pushed into the housing by an external force in a locking state; and an unlocking unit configured to switch the locking unit from the locked state to an unlocked state.
Stiehl teaches the sensor is LiDAR (Stiehl; [0005] “The movable sensors, which may include sensors such as radar sensors, lidar sensors, cameras”); a locking unit configured to lock the LiDAR so that the deployed LiDAR is prevented from being pushed into the housing by an external force in a locking state; and an unlocking unit configured to switch the locking unit from the locked state to an unlocked state (Stiehl; [0053] position locking system that is operated between a locked state and an unlocked state; [0054] “a mechanical interlock formed from a moving pin or other structure that physically engages sensor 26”; [0055] the unlocking system that provides “e.g., pin 110, which may be withdrawn from recess 112 by positioner 114 when it is desired to unlock sensor 26” per Fig. 23 which shows a “mechanical latch” which is the pin 110 that is inserted/withdrawn from recess 112 by positioner 114 to provide the desired control of the locking/unlocking of the operational positions for sensor 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the camera sensor as taught by Scholer with the LiDAR sensor as taught by Stiehl since the sensors are known elements that obtain the predictable result of providing environmental monitoring/detecting means that cooperate with vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success and with no unexpected results (MPEP 2143(I)(B) "Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor system as taught by Scholer to include a locking unit and unlocking unit that includes a moving pin that cooperates with a groove recess in the guide bracket as taught by Stiehl for the purpose of providing the desired control of locking/unlocking the operation position of the sensor (Stiehl; [0053-0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Scholer teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein each of the guide brackets includes a rail extending toward the opening in the first direction (Scholer; first and second slideways 72-73), and wherein a locking groove (Stiehl; 112) to which the locking unit is locked is formed on a surface of the rail facing the LiDAR (Stiehl; [0005] lidar).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 3-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li US20240201335 teaches a fender with a movable laser radar and a movable cover.
Long US20240077575 teaches a fender with a extendable/retractable radar and a movable cover plate.
Huelson US20230123315 teaches movable roof sensors but does not appear to teach the combination of guide brackets, a locking unit, and an unlocking unit.
Barthel US20200180520 teaches a camera 7, a cover 5, links, and a spindle for actuating the camera and the cover (operating sequence of Fig. 7-8).
Schuetz US20100040361 teaches a pivoting/rotating camera and protective cover.
Schütz US20150274089 teaches a slide 20, linear first guidance 11a/11b, a gear 30, and a lid 40.
Barthel US20120257057 teaches a guide bar 28 and groove 27.1 (Fig. 5).
Noel FR3106314 teaches displacing/deporting a lidar between a stored mode and an activated mode.
Oba CN108778841 teaches unlocking during a collision.
Qiu CN116409253 teaches a telescoping sensor and a protection window.
Nickel DE102019101861 teaches a side rib 34 for a cover 24.
Stiehl WO2022265827 teaches a list of alternative actuation means and locking/unlocking means.
Byun US20250028025 teaches a sliding lidar.
Byun US20250028026 teaches a sliding lidar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 6/15/26
Prosecution Insights