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 filed 12/1/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The non patent literature listed on This IDS are not legible and/or translated to English.
Claim Objections
The following claims objected to because of the following informalities:
There are two claims numbered 14.
Claim 8, 18 contains a misspelled word.
Claim 10 the word all is repeated.
The claims are further missing punctuations including commas.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-21 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presence", “the case”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “with the fog signature having a different time distribution, a different increase behavior, and/or a different amplitude of the received signal than in the case of a received signal from an object.” Not clear from the claims or the specification what is a “different increase behavior?”
Claim 1 recites “a different amplitude of the received signal than in the case of a received signal”. What is meant by “in the case” of a received signal? A different amplitude between the two signals?
Claim 2 recites “the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize the presence of fog when the check with the fog signature produces this for a plurality of angular positions.” The limitation is not clear and is missing detail/structure. What is the “check” and “produces this?”
Claim 3 recites a similar limitation and is similarly rejected as claim 2 above. What is meant by “m of n?”
Claim 4 recites “has a filter that is disposed downstream of the light receiver”. Not clear what is meant by downstream. Downstream in the circuit?
Claim 5 recites “to transmit a plurality of individual light pulses per angular position that scan light pulses received again respectively with only a few thresholds and accumulate the scans into a digital received signal.” Limitation is not clear. What does “few thresholds” refer to? What does “light pulses received again” refer to? Reflected light pulses back more than once?
Claim 6 recites “to transmit the plurality of individual light pulses per angular position that scan light pulses received again respectively with only a few thresholds binarize them with a single threshold, and accumulate the scans into a digital received signal.”
Regarding claim 9 and 10, the phrase "in the sense" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "in the sense"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 is dependent upon two claims numbered 14. Which of these claims is claim 15 dependent upon?
Claim 11, 12 recites the limitation "the minimum distance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 and 14 recites the limitation "the intensity", “the reflectivity”, “the expected intensity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, what intensity is referred to here? Signal intensity, light intensity?
Claim 19 recites “a safe sensor that has a safe output?”. Not clear from the claim or the specification what the term safe refers to. Safe, as in not posing a vision hazard for users? Safe as in providing data that is safe from false readings due to fog?
Claims 1 and 21 recite “light pulse remitted”. Not clear. What is a remitted pulse? Dose this mean reemitted?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the monitored zone", “the presence”, “the time signature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
*The examiner notes that all of the claims are replete with similar clarity issues to those described above, and for brevity, the examiner is not going to point out every instance. It is stressed that above provides non-limiting examples of clarity issues found throughout all of the pertinent claims to be examined, the Applicant is required to review all of the recited language to find all other similar issues with respect to the non-limiting examples discussed above and amend all of the issues appropriately.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 16-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwasawa (US 10139477).
In regards to claim 1, Iwasawa discloses an optoelectronic sensor for the detection and distance determination of objects in a monitored zone,
having a light transmitter for transmitting a transmitted pulse (Fig. 1 ref. 112, abstract pulsed laser light),
a deflection unit for transmitting the transmitted pulse at different angular positions (C5:51 “Rotating the scanning mechanism 120 at a certain rate in a predetermined direction enables the measurement direction of the laser range finder 110 to be changed in conjunction with this rotation”),
a light receiver for generating a received signal (Fig. 1 ref. 118), and
a control and evaluation unit that is configured to recognize a received pulse in the received signal (Iwasawa Figs. 4, 5 recognizes received light pulses), that the transmitted pulse remitted or reflected in the monitored zone generates in the received signal and to measure a distance with reference to a time of flight between the transmission of the transmitted pulse and the reception of the received pulse (Iwasawa disclose time of flight system C1:16),
as well as to recognize the presence of fog by evaluating the received signal (Iwasawa ref. 10 “fog detection preventing circuit”),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize the presence of fog by checking a time portion of the received signal with a fog signature corresponding to the received pulse (Iwasawa comparator),
with the fog signature having a different time distribution, a different increase behavior, and/or a different amplitude of the received signal than in the case of a received signal from an object (as suggested in Figs 4, 5 of Iwasawa which detail different increase behaviors at certain times for certain reflections).
In regards to claim 2, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 1 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize the presence of fog when the check with the fog signature produces this for a plurality of angular positions (Iwasawa ref. 10 fog detection prevention circuit).
In regards to claim 3, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 2 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize the presence of fog when the check with the fog signature produces this for at least m of n angular positions disposed next to one another (Iwasawa ref. 10 fog detection prevention circuit, Figs. 4, 5 produce peaks and for reflections).
In regards to claim 5, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 1 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to transmit a plurality of individual light pulses per angular position that scan light pulses received again respectively with only a few thresholds and accumulate the scans into a digital received signal (as best understood, Iwasawa abstract discloses pulsed laser light, Iwasawa further discloses angular rotation of device “Rotating the scanning mechanism 120 at a certain rate in a predetermined direction enables the measurement direction of the laser range finder 110 to be changed in conjunction with this rotation” therefore the control of the device of Iwasawa is able to transmit a plurality of individual light pulses per angular position).
In regards to claim 6, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 5, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to transmit the plurality of individual light pulses per angular position that scan light pulses received again respectively with only a few thresholds binarize them with a single threshold, and accumulate the scans into a digital received signal (as best understood, Iwasawa abstract discloses pulsed laser light, Iwasawa further discloses angular rotation of device “Rotating the scanning mechanism 120 at a certain rate in a predetermined direction enables the measurement direction of the laser range finder 110 to be changed in conjunction with this rotation” therefore the control of the device of Iwasawa is able to transmit a plurality of individual light pulses per angular position).
In regards to claim 7, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize the presence of fog only when at least one additional criterion is satisfied in addition to the check with the fog signature (as best understood Iwasawa C7:65 “at the output of the comparator CMP, there appear on the time axis a pulse waveform PH2 corresponding to one of the human bodies at relatively close range and the narrow pulse waveform PH1 corresponding to the other human body at relatively far range”).
In regards to claim 8, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7, wherein the at least one additional comprisese that measured values outside a minimum distance disappear, that a measured distance is in a fog distance region (Iwasawa Fig. 5(c) PH2 within fog region), that the received signal has an intensity expected for fog, and/or that no reflector has been recognized.
In regards to claim 11, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to check, as the additional criterion for the presence of fog, whether an expected distance measurement number of measured values outside the minimum distance has been detected (as suggested in Figs. of Iwa, Fig. 5 (b) values outside of peak value WH2 correspond to values outside a minimum distance to peak).
In regards to claim 12, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to check, as the additional criterion for the presence of fog, whether an expected distance measurement number of measured values outside the minimum distance has been detected over a respective predetermined time interval (Iwasawa Fig. 5(c)).
In regards to claim 13, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 wherein the fog distance region comprises distances up to a maximum of 10 m (Iwasawa C7:5).
In regards to claim 16, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize a reflector by the fact that a current in the light receiver exceeds a reflector threshold (Iwasawa Figs 4, 5 a reflection is seen in graph peaks, thus a reflector of the signal exceeds the threshold indicated in graph).
In regards to claim 17, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize a reflector by the fact that a current in the light receiver exceeds a reflector threshold by measuring the current in a voltage supply of the light receiver (Iwasawa Figs 4, 5 a reflection is seen in graph peaks, thus a reflector of the signal exceeds the threshold indicated in graph).
In regards to claim 18, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claimn1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured only to recognize fog and/or no longer to recognize fog when it is confirmed over a plurality of measurements (Iwasawa C8:18 “removes detection signals per se resulting from reflection off objects such as fog and a window face. Hence, the control operation circuit can be dedicated to processing of detection signals representing human bodies”).
In regards to claim 19, Iwasawa as discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 1 wherein the sensor is configured as a safe sensor that has a safe output and whose control and evaluation unit is configured to output a safety related signal over the safe output on recognition of a safety related event in the monitored zone (Iwasawa C8:28 “can practically eliminate constraints that would occur in distinguishing between fog and a human body for detection and greatly improve close-range human body detecting capability in fog or a similarly poor environment”).
In regards to claim 20, Iwasawa discloses a sensor in accordance with claim 1 wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to recognize a safety related event by monitoring protected fields configured in the monitored zone (Iwasawa abstract) and to apply stricter criteria for the presence of fog at angular positions and/or distances of a protected field (Iwasawa abstract).
In regards to claim 21, Iwasawa discloses a method of the detection and distance determination of objects in a monitored zone, wherein a light pulse is transmitted into one of a plurality of different angular positions (Fig. 1 ref. 112, abstract pulsed laser light, C5:51 disclose rotating the pulsed laser light thus different angular positions) and is received again to generate a received signal in which a received pulse is recognized that the light pulse remitted or reflected in the monitored zone generates (Iwasawa returned light via ref. 118), and a distance is measured between the transmission and reception of the light pulse with reference to a time of flight (Iwasawa disclose time of flight system C1:16), and the presence of fog is recognized by evaluating the received signal (Iwasawa ref. 10 “fog detection preventing circuit”), wherein the presence of fog is recognized by checking a time portion of the received signal with a time signature corresponding to the received pulse (as suggested in Figs. 4, 5 of Iwasawa, signal peak vs time), with the time signature having a different time distribution, a different increase behavior, and/or a different amplitude of the received signal than in the case of a received pulse from an object (as suggested in Figs. 4, 5 of Iwasawa, signal peak vs time, differences in signal peak identifies object or fog).
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.
Claim 4, 9-10, 14, 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasawa in view of Sigmund et al (US 20130003041).
In regards to claim 4, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 1 but does not expressly disclose: that has a filter that is disposed downstream of the light receiver and that converts a received pulse into an oscillation,
Sigmond teaches a laser scanner comprising frequency filters within the reception path downstream of a detector (Fig. 3 ref. 44, [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Iwasawa with Sigmond by providing the means for a filter downstream of the light receiver and that converts a received pulse into an oscillation in order to filter out fog signals.
Iwasawa as combined further discloses:
wherein the fog signature has a reduced amplitude of at least a first oscillation, a changed sign of at least the first oscillation and/or a changed number of oscillations (Iwasawa as combined Sigmond [0055] “Other filter frequencies in a different range, for example a range of up to 250 MHz, are also possible”).
In regards to claim 9. Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured for safe fog recognition in the sense of a safety standard for personal protection or electrosensitive protective equipment.
Sigmond teaches safe configuration for a laser rangefinder ([0027] “configured to output a shutdown signal via the safe output upon detection of a forbidden intrusion into a predefined protection area within the monitored area”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Iwasawa with Sigmond by providing a safety standard for personal protection or electrosensitive protective equipment in the use of laser scanner as is well known in the art to protect personal using the optical devices.
In regards to claim 10, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured for safe fog recognition in the sense of a safety standard for personal protection or electrosensitive protective equipment by checking a plurality of or all all the additional criteria.
Sigmond teaches safe configuration for a laser rangefinder ([0027] “configured to output a shutdown signal via the safe output upon detection of a forbidden intrusion into a predefined protection area within the monitored area”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Iwasawa with Sigmond by providing the control and evaluation unit is configured for safe fog recognition for personal protection or electrosensitive protective equipment by checking a plurality criteria as is well known in the art to protect personal using the optical devices.
In regards to claim 14, Iwasawa as best understood, discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the intensity corresponds to an intensity expected for fog, with the expected intensity being derived.
Sigmond teaches lidar system sensor which determines an expected intensity value for fog (Fig. 2a, 2b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Iwasawa with Sigmond by providing the intensity corresponds to an intensity expected for fog in order to determine false readings.
In regards to claim 14 Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the intensity corresponds to an intensity expected for fog, with the expected intensity being derived from the reflectivity of a black test object being that intensity that an object having a reflectivity between 10% and 200% of the reflectivity of a black test object produces.
Sigmond teaches lidar system sensor which determines an expected intensity value for fog (Fig. 2a, 2b) and uses the reflectivity of test object ([0005] “provision of individual test targets having defined degrees of remission which have to be detected at respective scan angles”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Iwasawa with Sigmond by providing the means for the intensity to correspond to an intensity expected for fog, with the expected intensity being derived from the reflectivity of a black test object in order to increase the precision of the measurements.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide that the expected intensity derived from the reflectivity of a test object have a reflectivity between 10% and 200% of the reflectivity in order to allow a stronger reflected signal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 15, Iwasawa discloses the sensor in accordance with claim 14, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured for a consistency check in which fewer or no distances outside a fog distance may be measured on the presence of an intensity expected for fog (Iwasawa discloses check system, no distances to fog measurements as system is off, C7:38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display Lidar systems detecting fog/opacity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights