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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023; 04/04/2024; 06/10/2024; and 11/06/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: equations 1a thru equation 4 need to spell out. For example, at least equation 1a:
PNG
media_image1.png
37
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the term
PNG
media_image2.png
28
33
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is an acronym which can mean different things and/or change in meaning over time; hence, it would be desirable to write out the actual words to which the acronym refers. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,249,192.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,249,192 discloses
transmitting, by a laser, a beam (Claim 10: scanning optics configured to transmit the modulated optical signal);
operating, by one or more processors, a scanner to obtain a first range in a portion of a field of view of the scanner (Claim 10: operate the one or more scanning optics to obtain a plurality of first range measurements in a field of view of the one or more scanning optics using a first angular resolution);
assigning, by the one or more processors, a resolution to the portion of the field of view based on the first range (Claim 10: assign a second angular resolution to a particular range gate of a plurality of range gates using one or more first range measurements); and
operating, by the one or more processors, the scanner to obtain, based on the resolution, a plurality of second ranges in the portion of the field of view (Claim 10: operate the one or more scanning optics, using the second angular resolution, the dilated minimum angle, and the dilated maximum angle assigned to the particular range gate of the plurality of range gates, to obtain a plurality of second range measurements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wee (US 2012/0242972).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 19, Wee discloses a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system for a vehicle, a vehicle control system, and a method, the LIDAR sensor comprising:
a laser source configured to generate a beam (paragraphs [0020], [0026]; e.g., The subsystem also contains a pulse generator used to periodically trigger the laser emitter in the generation of a pulse sequence);
one or more scanning optics configured to transmit the beam (paragraphs [0026], [0031], [0046]; see output beams); and
one or more processors configured to:
operate the one or more scanning optics to obtain a first range in a portion of a field of view of the one or more scanning optics (paragraphs [0022], [0039];e .g., the long-range sensor can be concentrated on an 11 deg field of view and can be used to sense 3 lanes wide in the range of between 50 and 150 meters);
assign a resolution to the portion of the field of view based on the first range (paragraph [0022], [0027], [0038]; e.g., providing the capability to the subsystem of a fine angular resolution for obstacle detection within the field of view of the system. For example, using a linear array detector and a FOV of 60 degrees, the average coverage by detector "pixel" would be on average below 2 degrees); and
operate the one or more scanning optics to obtain, based on the resolution, a plurality of second ranges in the portion of the field of view (paragraphs [0038]-[0040]; e.g., objects can be determined to exceed the long-range detection subsystem's field of view limits when they are within once the angular resolution of the long-range detection subsystem).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the portion of the field of view is a range gate from a first azimuth angle to a second azimuth angle and from a first elevation angle to a second elevation angle (paragraphs [0020], [0022]; e.g., a short field of view 11 covering a horizontal angle α and a depth 12, and a second sensor subsystem referred to as a long range sensor having a long field of view 15 covering a narrower horizontal angle β but a greater depth 16).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: operate the one or more scanning optics to obtain a plurality of first ranges in the field of view, wherein the plurality of first ranges includes the first range; and assign a subset of the plurality of first ranges to the portion of the field of view to define a range gate in which each first range of the subset of the plurality of first ranges is in an interval of first ranges (paragraphs [0020], [0022]; e.g., the short range sensor having a field of view between 40 and 80.degree., preferably between 50 and 70, and a range of 100 meters, preferably up to 70 meters).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: operate the one or more scanning optics to obtain a plurality of first ranges in the field of view, wherein the plurality of first ranges includes the first range; and wherein the plurality of second ranges have a denser spatial sampling than the plurality of first ranges (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, further comprising a modulator coupled with the laser source, wherein the modulator is configured to modulate at least one of a frequency or a phase of the beam (paragraphs [0022], [0026]; e.g., The subsystem also contains a pulse generator used to periodically trigger the laser emitter in the generation of a pulse sequence, the periodicity of the pulse (or inversely, the related sampling frequency) of the pulse sequence being a controllable parameter).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, further comprising a detector configured to receive a return beam from reflection of the transmitted beam by an object and to output an electrical signal to the one or more processors, wherein the electrical signal is indicative of the first range (paragraphs [0026], [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the resolution as an angular resolution between scan points for the plurality of second ranges and based on a target spatial resolution for detection of an object in the portion of the field of view (paragraphs [0022], [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system of claim 1, wherein the resolution is greater than a width of the transmitted beam (Figs. 6 and 7; paragraphs [0020], [0022]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a point cloud based on the plurality of second ranges (paragraphs [0022], [0026], [0038]).
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 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee in view of Dirix et al. (US 2010/0046826).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Wee discloses the LIDAR sensor system and the vehicle control system of claims 1 and 11, fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to operate the one or more scanning optics to transmit the beam as a sawtooth scan pattern to obtain the plurality of second ranges in the portion of the field of view.
However, Dirix discloses the processors are configured to operate the one or more scanning optics to transmit the beam as a sawtooth scan pattern to obtain the plurality of second ranges in the portion of the field of view (paragraphs [0003], [0054], [0057]; e.g., guides the beam in a temporal saw-tooth movement).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Wee in combination of Dirix as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to transmit the beam as a sawtooth scan pattern to obtain the plurality of second ranges in the portion of the field of view in order to concentrating the light in at least one dimension and focusing for forming an image in an image plane (Dirix: Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648