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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s argument regarding claim 1, the amended limitation does not help clarify since it isn’t clear that the LiDAR UUT transmitting the laser signal is actually part of the method steps. Further explanation below with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112.
With respect to applicant’s argument regarding claim 2, examiner appreciates the amendment and agrees it helps. However it still isn’t clear where in the method steps the steps of claim 2 relate. There is an antecedent basis issue with several laser signals.
With respect to claim 9, the applicant argues that a collimator is configured to receive FMCW laser signals from a LiDAR UUT by structure and position of the collimator. The examiner disagrees. Receiving FMCW laser signals specifically from a LiDAR UUT is an intention, not structure for the collimator. Unless there is something special about the structure and position of the collimator that is not yet disclosed. The LiDAR UUT is not itself claimed in the system so the collimator cannot limited by the orientation or location of the LiDAR UUT.
With respect to claim 17, the “wherein” limitations do not correct the issue since “wherein” clauses often add indefiniteness over whether the phrase is required. In this case, the claim is drawn to instructions on a processor so the “wherein the transmitted FMCW laser signal is transmitted by the LiDAR UUT”, “wherein the collimated beam is received by a beam reducer”, and “wherein the reduced beam is received by a condenser” is not related to the instructions at all.
For these reasons, the rejections remain as updated to reflect the current claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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.
With respect to claim 1, the method steps include “receiving, by a collimator a frequency modulated continuous wave laser signal transmitted by a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) unit under test (UUT)” and “wherein the FMCW laser signal is transmitted by the LiDAR UUT in a sweet pattern comprising a specified transmission angle for a first point in time”. It is unclear if the transmitting by the LiDAR is inherently or likely part of the method step or if the method begins after that step is performed elsewhere. “Transmitted by..” is a passive voice step, not a positively recited method step, causing confusion over the metes and bounds of the limitation. The wording suggests that the actual transmitting is not part of the method but then the sweep pattern with a specified transmission angle is not limiting on the method, since the method step cannot be limited by things outside the scope of the steps. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations provide further steps for the method but fail to link those steps to the previously disclosed steps in claim 1. It is unclear the relationship between the parts. Specifically, it is unclear if the modulated FMCW laser signal transmitted to the LiDAR UUT is the same as the FMCW laser signal received by the collimator in claim 1. If so there seems to be circuitous steps, with the LiDAR UUT transmitting a FMCW to a collimator, to a beam reducer, modulating the beam and transmitting it the LiDAR UUT to start the method again? There seems to be some antecedent basis issue with the FMCW laser signal. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 9, it is unclear if a method or apparatus is being claimed. The limitations disclose a system of structural elements but further defines that the system is configured to perform several functions. And although it is permissible to a degree to claim structure is configured to perform functions in this case that limitation is indefinite since it isn’t clear what particular feature of the system’s structure permits the function to be performed. For example, configured to: “receive by the collimator” from a LiDAR unit under test a particular waveform doesn’t seem to require any extra structure to the system or the collimator itself, but rather outside elements that do not limit the claimed structure. There is no characteristic of the collimator that “configures” it to collect a particular waveform from a particular surface described in the specification. This is just a way of claiming the use of that collimator, which is not permitted as an apparatus claim. Additionally, it raises the question of when the system is infringed upon- when the physical elements are present or when the functions are performed. The additional limitations regarding the FMCW laser signal transmitted by a LiDAR UUT in a sweet pattern is not with the scope of the structural elements. Claims 10-14 also contain functional steps that unclearly attempt to limit the structure for the same reasons cited here. Correction is required.
With respect to claims 17-20, the phrases “wherein the FMCW laser signal is transmitted by the LiDAR UUT….for a first point in time,” “wherein the collimated beam is received by a beam reducer…,” and “wherein the reduced beam is received by a condenser coupled to one or more optical fibers” are indefinite as to their relationship with the program instructions. In this case, the “wherein” clauses do not give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps since the manipulative steps are for processor instructions but rather state background information. MPEP 2111.04 notes that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Correction is required.
The balance of claims is likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose or suggest “determining, based at least in part on a timing of receiving the reduced beam and a sweep pattern of the LiDAR UUT, a transmission angle for FMCW laser signal” in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DaSilva et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0357552 discloses a system for ranging LiDAR comprising receiving, by a collimator from a LiDAR UUT, a frequency modulated continuous wave laser signal to obtain a collimated beam, receiving the collimated beam by a beam reducer to obtain a reduced beam, receiving the reduced beam by a condenser coupled to one or more optical fibers. However, DaSilva fails to disclose determining a transmission angle for FMCW based on timing of receiving the reduced beam and a sweep pattern.
Beasley U.S. Publication 2008/0088503 discloses an FMCW radar with a frequency swept laser reflected from a field to be modeled and collected by optical fibers with an In-phase Quadrature, however fails to determine an angle of the FMCW based on timing of receiving the beam and a sweep pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights