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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102022000022347, filed on 10/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023, 03/20/2024 and 05/17/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to application filed 10/24/2023. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) in the following manner:
In Fig. 1, d1 and d2 are represented as the same distance.
Fig. 2 includes the non-English phrase “n.fotoni”.
Fig. 2 includes an acronym (i.e., TDC) which is not defined in the specifications. And since it is not recognizable as a standard acronym, its use is discouraged (even if defined in the specifications). [The examiner suggests using text legends in the figures to identify the individual numbered element (particularly in Figs. 2, 4 and 5) to improve the ability to quickly interpret the figures.]
Fig. 2 does not include ΔT1 and ΔT2, as one would expect from the Pg. 7, Lns. 13-25, which discusses Fig. 2 and introduces these time intervals.
Avalanche diodes are numbered differently in Figs. 2-3. In Fig. 2 it is 11 and in Fig. 3 it is 111.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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, the 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 Objections
The Specifications are objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 3, Ln. 23 - Pg. 4, Ln. 2: The phrasing “a longitudinal axis X” and “a transverse axis X” is inconsistent as “X” seems to be being defined twice.
Pg. 4, Lns. 5-8 states: “The motor vehicle 1 further comprises a plurality of sensors 10, 110 (schematically shown in respective Figure 1 and 3) designed to detect a driving speed v of the motor vehicle 1.”. However there is no element numbered 110 in either Fig. 1 or Fig. 3. And it appears to the examiner these are the same sensors.
Avalanche diodes are numbered both 11 and 111 in the Specifications. However, in two instances the avalanche diode number includes an “a”: “11a”, Pg. 4, Ln. 14 and “111 a”, Pg. 9, Ln. 2. The examiner recommends omitting the “a” in each case.
Pg. 5, Lns. 22-23: The phrase “reflection by diffuse ration in a plurality of directions” is awkwardly worded. Perhaps “diffuse ration” is simply meant to be diffusion.
On Pg. 7, the “driving speed” is listed as v1 and V1. Consistency is required. The issue of using “v” and “V” occurs throughout the specifications.
“v1” is used to represent two different quantities throughout the specifications. For example: a standard driving speed determined with the aid of a histogram (as clearly described on Pg. 6, Ln. 21 – Pg. 7, Ln. 14), and a “temporary value V1 of the driving speed” (Pg. 10, Ln. 24) and “the temporary speeds v1, v2” (Pg. 11, Ln. 11).
Pg. 8, Ln. 17: The lettering includes two different fonts. See the words “laser” and “cavity”.
Pg. 9, Lns. 10-15: Discusses determining a “temporary…driving speed v2” using images, but no imaging device is described in the specifications.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11: The numeral 11 is assigned to both “one or more single-photon avalanche diodes (SPAD)” and a photodetector. The same phrase should consistently be used for the same element, and the same number (i.e., different numbers are assigned to the avalanche diode and photodetector in Claim 11).
Claims 1 and 7: A “first sensor” is provided with two separate numbers (i.e., “10, 110) in Claim 1, whereas a “second sensor” is number 110 in Claim 7 .
Claims 11-12: A “first emitter” is provided with two separate numbers (i.e., “15, 115) in Claim 11, whereas a “second emitter” is number 115 in Claim 12.
Claims 1, 8 and 11-12: Include the phrase “time instant(s)”. The examiner sees no advantage to such terminology, because unless it is actually meant to refer to a time-interval, there is no distinction from simply using the word “time”, which is preferable.
Claims 1 and 8-13: The phrases “first temporary value” and “secondary temporary value” are objected to as non-standard terminology. With regard to vehicle speed, the phrase “first temporary value (v1) of the driving speed (v)” is indistinguishable from “first value of the driving speed” or “first speed”. The fact that speed may be constantly changing is inherent.
Claims 1 and 3: The “motor vehicle (1), in Claim 1, and the “sprung mass”, in Claim 3, are both claimed to comprise “body (2)”. This cannot be correct.
Claim 3: The terms “sprung mass” and “unsprung mass” include no numbering, unlike all other elements in the claims. In addition, these phrases are uncommon. The examiner suggests rewording Claim 3.
Claims 7-8: A “second sensor” is numbered 110 in Claim 7 but numbered 10 in Claim 8. The latter is clearly incorrect, as the “first sensor” is numbered 10 in Clam 1.
Claims 8 and 12: Each refers to a “plurality of images” but does not properly establish an antecedent basis for generating such images.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 include the phrase(s) comparable to “acquire a first value of the distance (d2) between said first sensor (10) and said reference point (P) on said road surface (16)”. However, the specifications fail to define or identify how the location of this “reference point” is determined. The specification only indicates it is on the road, with providing a means of identifying or calculating an exact position.
Claims 1 and 11 include the phrase “detected by the relative photodetector”. The term “relative photodetector” has no standard meaning and is not defined in the specifications.
Claim 3 includes the phrases “sprung mass “ and “unsprung mass” but there is no discussion of either term in the specifications.
Claims 8 and 12 include the phrase “process a plurality of images associated with the respective time instants of the relative motion of the wheel relative to said second emitter, based on respective signals generated by said second sensor”. The overall meaning of the claim is unclear to the examiner, as are individual portions of the claim. First, the corresponding independent claims include no imaging device, so it is unclear where these images came from, or what the images include within them. Secondly, the multiple uses of the word “relative” makes the phrase “respective time instants of the relative motion of the wheel relative to said second emitter” undecipherable. Thirdly, the how the “signals” relate to the “images” is not clear.
Claim 9 states:
“comprises a plurality of said second sensors (110), each associated with a relative wheel (4, 5) and each designed to detect a relative third temporary value (v3) of the driving speed of the relative wheel (4, 5); said control unit (20) being programmed to process said second temporary value (v2) of the driving speed of said motor vehicle (1), based on said third temporary values (v3).
However, specification is unclear on how “driving speed v3” is determined and, for example, its relationship to v1. “v3” is first introduced on Pg. 8, Lns. 20-23, with the simple statement:
“With reference to Figures 3 and 4, the sensors 110 are associated with respective wheels 4, 5 and are designed to detect respective driving speed values v3 of the motor vehicle 1.”
This is followed up on Pg. 10 with a statement involving v3 that includes the phrase “not described in detail”:
“More precisely, the control unit 20 is programmed to process the temporary value of the driving speed v2 based on the driving speeds v3 detected by the sensors 110 according to an algorithm, which is not part of the invention and, therefore, is not described in detail.”
Thus, not only is a clear explanation of how v3 is to be determined not provided, the lack of clarity increases by using this v3 to determine v2. How is v3 determined and how does it relate to v1 and v2? And how does it aid in improving the overall measurement of vehicle speed? The examiner cannot answer these questions.
Claim 8 includes the phrase “process a second temporary value ”. The definition of “second temporary…driving speed v2” is provided on Pg. 9, Lns. 10-15 as:
“The control unit 20 is further programmed to process a second temporary value of the driving speed v2 of the wheel 4, 5, based on a plurality of images 130 representative of the position of the emitter 115 relative to the single-photon avalanche diodes 11 in different time instants consecutive to one another.”
This statement lacks clarity on a number of issues. The specifications include no imaging device (or indication of the location and orientation of an imaging device). What does it mean for an image to represent the position between an emitter and receiver? (Are not the emitter and receiver stationary?) How is a numerical value for the “temporary value of the driving speed” calculated? How does it differ from a non-temporary “value of the driving speed”?
The Specifications on Pg. 10, Lns. 7-14, states:
“In other words, the control unit 20 uses the information acquired by the sensor 10 to calculate the driving speed v2 according to a technique known as optical flow.
More precisely, the control unit 20 is programmed to process the temporary value of the driving speed v2 based on the driving speeds v3 detected by the sensors 110 according to an algorithm, which is not part of the invention and, therefore, is not described in detail.”
This connects v2 to a technique termed “optical flow”. But there is inadequate description to explain how the “optical flow” technique relates to this invention. Well-known or not, it requires a detailed explanation of its relevance to this invention, which is not provided. It is unclear if this technique (which typically involves computer vision) applies to determining temporary or non-temporary driving speeds.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 10 and 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as depending from independent Claims 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1 and 11 include the phrase(s) comparable to “acquire a first value of the distance (d2) between said first sensor (10) and said reference point (P) on said road surface (16)”, without an indication of where such a “reference point” is located on the road surface relative to any part of the moving vehicle. Thus, the ability to calculate a single distance value is not possible if the specific location of the reference point cannot be precisely determined relative to the moving vehicle.
Claims 1 and 11 include the phrase “detected by the relative photodetector”, which is unclear since “relative photodetector” not standard terminology and is grammatically incorrect. In the proper context, the phrase “relative to a photodetector” would be grammatically correct. The examiner suggest omitting the word relative.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 11-12, include the phrase “time instant(s)”. Whether this is referring simply to an “instant of time” or a “time interval” is unclear. The examiner suggests simply using the word time.
Claims 1 and 8-13 include the phrases “first temporary value” and “secondary temporary value”. It is unclear what purpose the word temporary serves. Is there supposed to be a difference between a “first value” and a “first temporary value”? It is unclear what the difference would be.
Claim 3 includes the phrase “a sprung mass comprising said body (2)”, but Claim 1 indicates “A motor vehicle (1) comprising: a body (2)”. The latter phrase is clear, while the former is unclear. In addition, the phrase “an unsprung mass comprising said wheels (4, 5)” is unclear. Is this say the wheels are an “unsprung mass”? Why do they need to be defined in this way? Other than seeming to be related in some way to the suspension, the use of the terminology “sprung mass” and “unsprung mass” contribute to an overall lack of clarity in Claim 3.
Claims 8 and 12 include the phrase “process a plurality of images associated with the respective time instants of the relative motion of the wheel relative to said second emitter, based on respective signals generated by said second sensor”. The overall meaning of the claim is unclear to the examiner, as are individual portions of the claim. First, the corresponding independent claims include no imaging device, so it is unclear where these images came from, or what the images include within them. Secondly, the multiple uses of the word “relative” makes the phrase “respective time instants of the relative motion of the wheel relative to said second emitter” undecipherable. Thirdly, the how the “signals” relate to the “images” is not clear.
Dependent Claims 2, 5-7 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as depending from independent Claims 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") – see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are a motor vehicle, and Claims 11-14 are method. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101 (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is considered a representative independent claim. The examiner has determined, the following analysis is applicable to each independent claim. With regard to Claim 1:
A motor vehicle comprising: a body defining a passenger compartment; a plurality of wheels; and a first sensor designed D) to detect a value associated with a driving speed of said motor vehicle; said first sensor comprising, in turn: a first emitter configured to emit a first laser signal; one or more first single-photon avalanche diodes configured to detect said first laser signal or a second laser signal generated, in use, by the reflection of said first laser signal; and a control unit programmed to process said value associated with a driving speed of said motor vehicle based on said first laser signal detected, in use, by said first photodetectors; characterized in that said control unit is programmed to:
acquire a first value of the distance between said first sensor and a reference point on said road surface in a first time instant, based on a first value associated with the intensity detected by the relative photodetector;
acquire a second value of the distance between said first sensor and said reference point on said road surface in a second time instant, based on a second value associated with the intensity detected by the relative photodetector; and
process a first temporary value of the driving speed, based on said first and second distance values and on the difference between said first and second time instants.
[see above]
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. [See MPEP 2106.04(a)-2106.04(a)(2)]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations can be grouped as:
A) and B) constitute "mental processes"; and
C) and D) constitute a “mathematical process”.
But for the additional elements, Claim 1 recites the general idea of gathering data [A) and B)] for the purpose of calculating a velocity [C) and D)]. Thus, the claim recites, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a combination of abstract ideas [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I & III].
Furthermore, the courts have deemed that implementation of an abstract idea by a generic computer (“a control unit programmed to process… said control unit is programmed to”) is equivalent to human performing the abstract idea:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing underlined additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner contends the additional limitations “to detect said first laser signal or a second laser signal generated, in use, by the reflection of said first laser signal…said first laser signal detected, in use, by said first photodetectors” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05(g)], in the form of data gathering. In addition, the examiner contends that the additional underlined limitations merely link the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)], i.e., the sensor system (i.e., “a first sensor…a first emitter…one or more first single-photon avalanche diodes…said first photodetectors”) of a vehicle (i.e., “motor vehicle…body defining a passenger compartment; a plurality of wheels”), without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the limitation “a control unit programmed to process said value…said control unit is programmed to” constitutes an attempt to apply the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)), which is deemed as an attempt to merely apply the judicial except without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2B: The examiner further submits that the aforementioned additional element in Claim 1 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Using a sensor to gather data to determine the speed of a vehicle is well-understood, routine, and a conventional activity, previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception [MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III].
Additionally, the use of generic computer components (“a control unit programmed to process said value…said control unit is programmed to”) falls under the category of “merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea”, and thus, does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (Step 2A). Nor does the use of generic computer components to use gathered data to calculate the speed of a vehicle provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that independent Claim 11 includes the same limitations as Claim 1 associated with “to detect a value associated with a driving speed” (discussed above under Step 2A, Prong 1). Thus, Claim 11 under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitutes a combination of abstract ideas, related to mental processes and mathematical concepts, and thus, overall, amounts to an abstract idea.
Dependent: Claims 2-10 and 12-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, with regard to Claims 2-10 and 12-14, the claimed invention is directed to additional abstract ideas associated with “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concept”, or applying the abstract idea:
specific data gathered (Claim 2);
additional elements to physically support the emitter and the photodetector [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claim 3);
additional calculations using a generic computer (Claim 4);
data processing elements (electronic circuit and time measuring circuit) [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claim 5);
additional mathematical calculations (Claim 6);
additional data gathering components [insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - MPEP 2106.05(g)] (Claim 7);
additional data gather and mathematical calculations (Claim 8);
additional data gather and mathematical calculations (Claim 9);
additional mathematical calculations (Claims 10 and 13);
additional data gather and mathematical calculations (Claim 12);
additional element associated with a generic computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] (Claim 14).
Therefore, Claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-6, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacala et al. (US 2019/0056497 A1, henceforth Pacala) and Ono (US 2014/0212003 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pacala teaches the limitations: a motor vehicle {vehicle in Figs. 1A-1B; see also ¶62} comprising: a body defining a passenger compartment {automobile in Fig. 1A, and ¶62 refers to multiple vehicles (automotive, boats, aircraft, trains with compartments for passengers)}; a plurality of wheels {the car in Figs. 1A-1B, and cars and trucks mentioned in ¶2 all inherently have wheels}; and a first sensor {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes an array of light emitters (402) and receiving/sensing elements (404), wherein the light emitters are vertical-cavity-lasers and the receiving elements are photosensors comprised of a set of photodetectors like single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), ¶86} designed to detect a value associated with a driving speed of said motor vehicle {represented in Fig. 1A is an automotive light ranging device or LIDAR system, ¶13, for determining distance to objects in the vicinity of the vehicle}; said first sensor comprising, in turn: a first emitter configured to emit a first laser signal {light emitter array 402, Fig. 4}; one or more first single-photon avalanche diodes (SPAD) configured to detect said first laser signal or a second laser signal generated {light sensor array 404, Fig. 4, can be a single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), ¶86}, in use, by the reflection of said first laser signal {“Reflected portions 239 of the transmitted light are then detected by the light sensing module 230 after some delay time”, ¶70}; and a control unit {LIDAR system 200 in Fig. 2 includes light ranging device 210 and controller 250, ¶70; also signal processing ASIC 231, ¶73} programmed to process said value {aforementioned LIDAR system used to determine distance via time-of-flight, ¶2} associated with a driving speed of said motor vehicle based on said first laser signal detected, in use, by said first photodetectors {time-of-flight calculation of distance using the LIDAR data is discussed in ¶78-83, and calculation of relative velocity, via the Doppler shift, described in ¶92}; characterized in that said control unit is programmed to: acquire a first value of the distance {time-of-flight used to determine distances, ¶82} between said first sensor and a reference point on said road surface in a first time instant {reflection of a pulse of light emitted by the aforementioned vertical-cavity-laser(s) off an object in the vicinity of the vehicle is used to detect distances to an object, ¶2, wherein the object can inherently be the road surface, which is described in ¶313}, based on a first value associated with the intensity detected by the relative photodetector {light sensing module 230 includes sensor array 236, comprised of an array of photon detectors, with ASIC 231 counting photons and producing an intensity histogram, ¶73}; acquire a second value of the distance between said first sensor and said reference point on said road surface in a second time instant, based on a second value associated with the intensity detected by the relative photodetector {¶117, ¶119 and ¶120, respectively, discuss three sequential “pulse trains”, which can be combined to generate a histogram (i.e., an accumulated signal, ¶120) or, as described in ¶141, individual pulses, or short pulse trains, can be used to determine individual distances at different times: “matched filters can be used to determine a temporal location (received time) of a detected pulse. The received time can then be used to determine the total time of flight of the pulse, which can then be translated to a distance.”}; and process a first temporary value of the driving speed {the relative (or instantaneous) velocity determined by the Doppler shift, ¶92, will be the vehicle velocity when the object being reflected off of is the road, as described in ¶313}.
Pacala does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: process a first temporary value of the driving speed , based on said first and second distance values and on the difference between said first and second time instants.
However, Ono explicitly recites the limitation: process a first temporary value of the driving speed , based on said first and second distance values and on the difference between said first and second time instants {with respect to Fig. 7, camera 100 captures images at a known frame rate (¶81), the images include markings produced by the mark irradiation units (108, 110) that enable determination of the distance traveled during the frame rate interval (distance detection unit 214, ¶82), with the vehicle speed then calculated by speed calculation unit 218 (¶86)}.
Pacala and Ono are analogous art they both use sensors to determine vehicle speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pacala and Ono before them, to modify the teachings of Pacala to include the teachings of Ono to improve the accuracy of vehicle speed calculations {¶3}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitation: characterized in that said second laser signal corresponds, in use, to the reflection of said first laser signal against the road surface {“Reflected portions 239 of the transmitted light are then detected by the light sensing module 230 after some delay time”, ¶70, wherein the a first and second sensors correspond to the light emitters (402, Fig. 4) and receiving/sensing elements (404, Fig. 4) described in ¶86}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitation: characterized in that it comprises: a sprung mass comprising said body and supporting said first emitter and said first photodetectors; and an unsprung mass comprising said wheels and elastically connected to said sprung mass {This is interpreted by the examiner as placing emitter and receiving elements in the vicinity of the wheel and suspension elements (sprung mass); however, one skilled in the art will appreciate that wheels and shock absorbing or damping elements are well-known components of all modern road vehicles; With respect to ¶62-64, the LIDAR system (i.e., light emitters 402 and receiving/sensing elements 404, Fig. 4) described in ¶86 is mounted to the vehicle, and can be placed on the roof, but is not limited to being place on the roof; moreover, per MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C, arranging a emitter/receiver combination near a wheel rather than on the roof, for example, is simply a rearrangement of parts}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that said control unit is programmed to process said value associated with said driving speed based on at least one of the intensity of said second laser signal and the time elapsing, in use, between a first instant, in which said first laser signal is emitted, and a second instant, in which said second laser signal is detected {The examiner interprets this as simply being the calculation of a velocity based on a returned signal. As such, the total time-of-flight for an emitted pulse (or pulse train) to reflect of an object and return to the receiving element, and its translation into a distance value is described in ¶141, and calculation of relative velocity, via the Doppler shift, is described in ¶92, with the reflective surface being the road surface, as described in ¶313}; said intensity being associated with the number of photons detected, in use, by said photodetectors {generation of an intensity histogram based on counting photons is described in ¶73}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that said sensor comprises: an electronic circuit configured to receive, as an input, a current generated by a first photodetector and to generate, as an output, a voltage {threshold circuitry 540 generate an output current (i.e., avalanche current 534), ¶99 and Fig. 5}; and a time measuring circuit configured to provide a time signal associated with the time of reception of said second laser signal by said first photodetector {a clock signal is provided by phase-locked loop (PLL) or delay-locked loop (DLL) device, which coordinated with pixel counter 550 to act as a time-to-digital converter, ¶102 and Fig. 5}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that the control unit is programmed to: receive an impulse train from the circuit {pulse train, Fig. 7}; represent said impulse train as an associated histogram {Figs. 6-7 are histogram associated with time-of-flight analysis} having, on the horizontal axis, the time of arrival and, on the vertical axis, the number of accumulated photons; associate a peak of the histogram with a value of the time interval between the emission of said first laser signal and the reception of said second laser signal {“a single integrated circuit can include photosensors, as well as signal processing components. For example, timing circuitry of the integrated circuit can determine times for when photons are detected and histogram circuitry can accumulate numbers of detected photons over multiple detection time intervals of a measurement.”, ¶10}.
Pacala does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: process said first and second distance values as c*ΔT1, c*ΔT2, wherein c is the speed of light and ΔT1, ΔT2 is said time interval between the emission of said first laser signal and the reception of said second laser signal.
However, Ono explicitly recites the limitation: process said first and second distance values as c*ΔT1, c*ΔT2, wherein c is the speed of light and ΔT1, ΔT2 is said time interval between the emission of said first laser signal and the reception of said second laser signal {with respect to Fig. 7, camera 100 captures images at a known frame rate (¶81), the images include markings produced by the mark irradiation units (108, 110) that enable determination of the distance traveled during the frame rate interval (distance detection unit 214, ¶82), with the vehicle speed then calculated by speed calculation unit 218 (¶86)}.
Regarding Claim 11, Pacala teaches the limitations: a method to detect the speed {represented in Fig. 1A is an automotive light ranging device or LIDAR system, ¶13} of a motor vehicle {vehicle in Figs. 1A-1B; see also ¶62}, comprising the steps of: i) detecting, by means of a first sensor {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes an array of light emitters (402) and receiving/sensing elements (404), wherein the light emitters are vertical-cavity-lasers and the receiving elements are photosensors comprised of a set of photodetectors like single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), ¶86}, the driving speed of said motor vehicle {distance measurements by lighting (LIDAR) system 400, Fig. 4, are used to determine the relative velocity of the vehicle by the Doppler shift, ¶92}; ii) emitting a first laser signal by means of a first emitter {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes an array of light emitters (402), wherein the light emitters are vertical-cavity-lasers, ¶86}; iii) detecting said second laser signal generated by the reflection of said first laser signal {“Reflected portions 239 of the transmitted light are then detected by the light sensing module 230 after some delay time”, ¶70}, by means of one or more first single-photon avalanche diode {light sensor array 404, Fig. 4, can be a single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), ¶86} of said first sensor {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes an array receiving/sensing elements (404), wherein the receiving elements are photosensors comprised of a set of photodetectors like single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), ¶86}; iv) reflecting said first laser signal on a road surface {object being reflected off of is the road, as described in ¶313}; v) generating said second laser signal following the reflection of said first laser signal on said road surface {a signal captured by photodetector 404 (Fig. 4 and ¶86) that has been reflected off the road, ¶313}; and process a first temporary value of the driving speed {the relative (or instantaneous) velocity determined by the Doppler shift, ¶92, will be the vehicle velocity when the object being reflected off of is the road, as described in ¶313}; characterized in that it comprises the steps of: vi) acquiring a first value of the distance {LIDAR system used to determine distance via time-of-flight, ¶2} between said first sensor and a reference point on said road surface in a first time instant {represented in Fig. 1A is an automotive light ranging device or LIDAR system, ¶13, for determining distance to objects in the vicinity of the vehicle}, based on a first value associated with the intensity of said first laser signal detected by the relative first photodetector {light sensing module 230 includes sensor array 236, comprised of an array of photon detectors, with ASIC 231 counting photons and producing an intensity histogram, ¶73}; vii) acquiring a second value of the distance between said first sensor and said reference point on said road surface in a second time instant, based on a second value associated with the intensity of said first laser signal detected by the relative photodetector {acquiring distance data at different times is captured by the discussion in ¶117, ¶119 and ¶120, which discusses three sequential “pulse trains” that are combined to generate a histogram (i.e., an accumulated signal, ¶120) or, as described in ¶141, individual pulses, or short pulse trains, can be used to determine individual distances at different times: “matched filters can be used to determine a temporal location (received time) of a detected pulse. The received time can then be used to determine the total time of flight of the pulse, which can then be translated to a distance.”}; and viii) processing a first temporary value of the driving speed {the relative (or instantaneous) velocity determined by the Doppler shift, ¶92, will be the vehicle velocity when the object being reflected off of is the road, as described in ¶313}.
Pacala does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: process a first temporary value of the driving speed , based on said first and second distance values and on the difference between said first and second time instants .
However, Ono explicitly recites the limitation: process a first temporary value of the driving speed , based on said first and second distance values and on the difference between said first and second time instants {with respect to Fig. 7, camera 100 captures images at a known frame rate (¶81), the images include markings produced by the mark irradiation units (108, 110) that enable determination of the distance traveled during the frame rate interval (distance detection unit 214, ¶82), with the vehicle speed then calculated by speed calculation unit 218 (¶86)}.
Pacala and Ono are analogous art they both use sensors to determine vehicle speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pacala and Ono before them, to modify the teachings of Pacala to include the teachings of Ono to improve the accuracy of vehicle speed calculations {¶3}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: a computer product loadable {LIDAR system software, ¶430-431} into a control unit {LIDAR system 200 in Fig. 2 includes light ranging device 210 and controller 250, ¶70; also signal processing ASIC 231, ¶73} and designed, when it is executed, to implement the steps of a method according to claim 11 {see Claim 11 above}.
Claims 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Pacala, Ono and Go et al. (CA 3069726 A1, henceforth Go).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that it comprises a second sensor; said second sensor comprising, in turn: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; and a second photodetector {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes multiple emitters and receivers in the form of an array of light emitters (402) and receiving/sensing elements (404), ¶86; moreover, per MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B, a second emitter and second photodetector corresponds to a duplication of parts} arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel {Lidar components associated with a wheel area is addressed with additional prior art below}.
The combination of Pacala and Ono does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel.
However, Go explicitly recites limitation: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel {a set of sensors, including “Time of Flight (ToF) pulse laser rangefinder, and frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) lidar”, ¶8, are “arranged on both sides of the vehicle in the region of the vehicle that is on or near the front wheel arch panel (7-1)”, ¶15}.
The combination of Pacala and Ono along with Go are analogous art because they deal with vehicle sensor systems to determine vehicle parameters like distance to surrounding objects and vehicle speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pacala, Ono and Go before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Pacala and Ono to include the teachings of Go to ensure a set of functioning distance-determining sensors on one side of the vehicle should the set on the other side of the vehicle get damage {¶15}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Pacala, Ono and Go discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that said control unit {LIDAR system 200 in Fig. 2 includes light ranging device 210 and controller 250, ¶70; also signal processing ASIC 231, ¶73} is programmed {LIDAR system used to determine distance via time-of-flight, ¶2}, for at least one wheel, to: process a plurality of images {the examiner interprets, in the absence of an image taking device, the plurality of images to correspond to multiple histograms, as in Figs. 6-7} associated with respective time instants of the relative motion of said wheel relative to said second emitter {array of receiving/sensing elements (404), ¶86 and Fig. 4}, based on respective signals generated by said second sensor in corresponding time instants {time based histogram in Fig. 6}; and process a second temporary value of the driving speed of said motor vehicle, based on said images {the time-of-flight approach used to determine distances, in ¶82, is continuous process, as is the determination of relative velocity by the Doppler shift, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Pacala, Ono and Go discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that it comprises a plurality of said second sensors {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes multiple emitters and receivers in the form of an array of light emitters (402) and receiving/sensing elements (404), ¶86; moreover, per MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B, multiple sensors of the same type corresponds to a duplication of parts} arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel, each associated with a relative wheel {Lidar components associated with a wheel area is addressed with additional prior art below} and each designed to detect a relative third temporary value of the driving speed of the relative wheel {Lidar components associated with a wheel area is addressed with additional prior art below}; said control unit {LIDAR system 200 in Fig. 2 includes light ranging device 210 and controller 250, ¶70; also signal processing ASIC 231, ¶73} being programmed to process said second temporary value {aforementioned LIDAR system used to determine distance via time-of-flight, ¶2, and is inherently constantly processing data, thus generating the temporal data compiled in the intensity histogram of ¶73 and Figs. 6&9} of the driving speed of said motor vehicle, based on said third temporary values {the examiner interprets the time-of-flight approach used to determine distances, in ¶82, is continuous process, as is the determination of relative velocity by the Doppler shift (¶92), as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art; it is additionally noted that the same instantaneous distance determination (say d2) can contribute its value to the calculation of a first average velocity (i.e., (d1-d2)/(t1-t2)), and to the average value for the time interval immediately after it (i.e., (d2-d3)/(t2-t3)), as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
The combination of Pacala and Ono does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel.
However, Go explicitly recites limitation: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel {a set of sensors, including “Time of Flight (ToF) pulse laser rangefinder, and frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) lidar”, ¶8, are “arranged on both sides of the vehicle in the region of the vehicle that is on or near the front wheel arch panel (7-1)”, ¶15}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Pacala, Ono and Go discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that said control unit is programmed to process said value of the driving speed of said motor vehicle, based on one of said temporary values of the driving speed or based on a combination of said temporary values of the driving speed {The examiner interprets this to reflect the data needed to calculate the standard difference equation to calculate an average velocity (i.e. v=Δd/Δt). However, one skilled in the art will appreciate that calculation of both instantaneous and average velocities are well-known, calculatable, and in practical applications are comparable, if not the same, thus the use of the Doppler shift, ¶92, to calculate a relative velocity based on a pulse reflected off the road, ¶313, will provide the speed of the vehicle}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Pacala and Ono discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that said step i) comprises the steps of: ix) generating said laser signal by means of a second emitter a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; and
x) detecting said laser signal by means of a second photodetector {Lighting system 400 in Fig. 4 includes multiple emitters and receivers in the form of an array of light emitters (402) and receiving/sensing elements (404), ¶86; moreover, per MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B, a second emitter and second photodetector corresponds to a duplication of parts} arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel {Lidar components associated with a wheel area is addressed with additional prior art below}; said method comprising the steps of: xi) processing a plurality of images associated with respective time instants of the relative motion of said wheel relative to said second emitter on respective signals generated by said second sensor in corresponding time instants; and xii) processing a second temporary value of the driving speed of said motor vehicle, based on said images.
The combination of Pacala and Ono does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel.
However, Go explicitly recites limitation: a second emitter arranged on one of said body and a relative wheel; of a second photodetector arranged on the other one of said body and a relative wheel {a set of sensors, including “Time of Flight (ToF) pulse laser rangefinder, and frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) lidar”, ¶8, are “arranged on both sides of the vehicle in the region of the vehicle that is on or near the front wheel arch panel (7-1)”, ¶15}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Pacala, Ono and Go discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Pacala explicitly recites the limitations: characterized in that it comprises the step xiii) of processing said value of the driving speed of said motor vehicle, based on one of said temporary values of the driving speed {the relative (or instantaneous) velocity determined by the Doppler shift, ¶92, will be the vehicle velocity when the object being reflected off of is the road, as described in ¶313, which can be for a signal corresponding to instantaneous or average time represented by a single pulse, a short pulse-train, or based on an accumulation of pulses, or histogram, ¶117-120} or based on a combination of said temporary values of the driving speed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0224840 A1 – Flash LIDAR technique that involves offsetting the frames of captured flash LIDAR data, the resulting optical offset aids in vehicle guidance and navigation {¶14} and is referred to as optical flow {¶122}.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights