Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b). The applicant claims “reference voltage changes with a larger range as the reference voltage is greater in magnitude” in claim 4 and “reference voltage changes with a larger range when the reference voltage is changed in increasing direction in magnitude compared to when the reference voltage is changed in decreasing direction in magnitude.” In claim 5. Looking into the specification, the applicant states “Meanwhile, in changing the magnitude of the reference voltage, it is preferable that the larger the current reference voltage, the larger the range of change of the reference voltage. In other words, when the current reference voltage is relatively low, the range of change concerning the detection of the reflected signals should be relatively small, and when the reference voltage is relatively high, the range of change should be relatively large. This ensures that changes in the reference voltage can occur more swiftly and effectively, taking into account the current level of the reference voltage.” The use of the word “relatively” makes this claim indefinite as there is no tangible amount described for how much the voltage range changes by.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borosak (US 20160011302 A1) in view of Gao (WO 2020142948 A1) and further in view of Robeto (JP 2020505598 A).
Regarding claim 1, Borosak discloses a transmitter for emitting disrupting signals towards the LIDAR, “The laser transponder transmitter component converts an electrical signal initiated by the microcontroller to an optical signal. Conversion is performed by a pulsed laser diode which outputs pulses of light” (Paragraph 0041). Borosak also discloses respectively at different time intervals, “method of sending a disrupting signal while synchronizing a timer for the next period of a disrupting signal” (0032). Borosak discloses receiving measurement signals emitted by the LIDAR, “This is achieved by using a pair of laser transponders or by having separate modules for a laser receiver and for a laser transmitter. Laser transponders should be separately mounted with some distance between them to avoid cross talk of transmitting signal on the receiver. A microcontroller is connected to both laser transponders and is analysing received signals. When an advanced LIDAR signal is detected it reconfigures inputs and outputs so that the first transponder becomes a transmitting only unit and the second transponder becomes a receiving only unit.” (Paragraph 0032). Borosak discloses a control unit for controlling a transmitter, “Microcontroller 206 has four transmit output signals TX.sub.1, TX.sub.2, TX.sub.3 and TX.sub.4 from pins 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Transmit output signals are fed to the laser transmitter sections of the laser transponders 101, 102 and they direct the transmission of laser disruption pulses” (Paragraph 0046). Borosak does not disclose a comparator for comparing a voltage of signals received in the receiver with a reference voltage which is variable; and a control unit for changing the reference voltage based on an output of the comparator while the reflected signals for the probing signals are received in the receiver.
Gao discloses a receiver for receiving reflected signals which are reflections of the probing signal and the disrupting signals from an external environment, “a receiver 102 for receiving a laser reflection signal” (Paragraph 0026) and “receiver 102 may also share a lidar probe to transmit a laser transmitting signal and receive a laser reflection signal by means of built-in transmitting and receiving signal switching” (Paragraph 0026). Gao discloses a transmitter for transmitting probing signals based on the previous cited reference. Gao discloses a comparator for comparing a voltage of signals received in the receiver with a reference voltage, “the time measurement unit 103 may include a comparator and the TDC circuit mentioned above. One input of the comparator is the signal to be measured output by the receiver 102 during the process of receiving the laser reflection signal. The other input of the comparator is a reference signal; the comparator generates an output signal according to the level amplitude of the signal under test and the level amplitude of the reference signal output by the receiver 102” (Paragraph 0048). Gao does not disclose changing the reference voltage based on an output of the comparator while the reflected signals for the probing signals are received in the receiver.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate features disclosed by Gao into the invention of Borosak. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose. The combination of Borosak and Gao would be obvious with an expectation of an improved LIDAR disrupting apparatus.
Roberto discloses changing the reference voltage based on an output of the comparator while signals are received in the receiver, “The monitoring device 1 has a detector 5 which is designed to receive laser light and to generate a reference signal 100 from the received laser light. In particular,the detector 5 generates a current signal reflecting the received optical power. In a preferred embodiment, a transimpedance converter 12 is provided for
converting the current signal into a voltage signal. The reference signal 100 is
therefore a voltage signal whose voltage varies with respect to the optical power
received by the detector 5” (Paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate features disclosed by Roberto into the combination of Borosak and Gao. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose. The combination of Roberto with the combination of Borosak and Gao would be obvious with an expectation of a improved LIDAR disrupting apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Borosak discloses control unit controls the transmitter to emit the disrupting signals alternatively, “sending a disrupting signal while synchronizing a timer for the next period of a disrupting signal. This is achieved by using a pair of laser transponders or by having separate modules for a laser receiver and for a laser transmitter”(Paragraph 0032). Borosak does not disclose the emission of probing signals.
Gao discloses the emission of probing signals, “receiver 102 may also share a lidar probe to transmit a laser transmitting signal and receive a laser reflection signal by means of built-in transmitting and receiving signal switching” (Paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate features disclosed by Gao into the invention of Borosak. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose. The combination of Borosak and Gao would have been obvious with expectation of success to create a transmitter that can emit disrupting signals and probing signals alternatively of each other.
Regarding claim 3, Gao discloses an MCU that outputs a first control signal corresponding to the output of the comparator while the reflected signals for the probing signals are received in the receiver, “time measurement unit 103 may include a comparator and a TDC circuit mentioned above, one input of the comparator is the signal to be output by the receiver 102 in the process of receiving the laser reflection signal, and the other input of the comparator is a reference signal; The comparator generates an output signal according to the level amplitude of the signal to be measured and the level amplitude of the reference signal output” (Paragraph 0048). Gao does disclose a DAC that receives the first control signal to output the reference voltage, “The DAC device generates the signal of the required level amplitude threshold as the reference signa” (Paragraph 0051). Gao does not disclose that the MCU outputs a second control signal for controlling emission timing of the probing signals and the disrupting signals and a driver to drive emission of the probing signals and the disrupting signals of the transmitter.
Borosak discloses outputs a second control signal for controlling emission timing of the probing signals and the disrupting signals, “The purpose of a microcontroller is to analyse received signals and to determine according output signals. It also communicates with the user via a user interface. Its input signals are receive signals from laser transponders and control signals from a user interface and its output signals are transmit and program signals to the laser transponders” (Paragraph 0039). Borosak discloses driver to drive emission of the probing signals and the disrupting signals of the transmitter, “Conditioned transmission signal now enters a driver integrated circuit 403, preferably consisting of Fairchild 74AC14 hex Schmitt inverter gates connected in parallel. Signal current capability is now increased and is brought to a laser diode output transistor 404, preferably International Rectifier IRLL014N. The output transistor 404 converts the trigger signal into a high current signal through a laser diode 405. The laser diode 405, preferably Osram SPLPL90.sub.—3 converts a part of the electrical energy given by a high current to optical laser energy which radiates towards the target. High impulse current is supplied by an array of fast storage decoupling capacitors 406 consisting of preferably Murata 470 nF capacitors.” (Paragraph 0054).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate features disclosed by Borosak into the invention of Gao. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose. The combination of Borosak and Gao would have been obvious with expectation of success to create a control unit that controls the LIDAR disrupting apparatus based on a comparator output during the process of receiving reflection signals of a probing signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH CHARLES GARDINER whose telephone number is (571)270-0634. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/JOSH CHARLES GARDINER/
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights