DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 12/4/2023.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recite a large number of unexplained acronyms and abbreviations that make it impossible to discern the scop of the claims. For example, Claim 1 contains the abbreviations, “ADC,” ZNQ,” “ZYNQ,” “PMT,” and many others as limitations, where there is no antecedent declaration of what those abbreviations stand for. The specification also does not appear to include specific definitions of what these are meant to encompass.
Additionally, Claims 1-3 contain many references to trademarked company names and products as limitations regarding elements of the claimed system, such as “Xilinx,” “Ultrascale+,” “ADI Company,” and “Kintex-7.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Furthermore, Claims 1-3 are indefinite as they are prolix, or in other words, contain a long narrative recitation of unimportant details such as well-known and publicly on-sale types of chips and other computing components that are used to make up the claimed system. See MPEP 2173.05(m). Because of the nature of the claims, it is impossible to assign a meaningful scope to what is recited therein.
As there is therefore a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to what the actual invention is and what the metes and bounds of the claims are, a proper prior art rejection of the claims cannot be made. Such a rejection would necessarily require a great deal of assumptions and speculation on the part of the examiner. See MPEP § 2173.06(II). Examiner will present relevant prior art and explain how it pertains to elements of the claimed device, in order to assist Applicant in drafting claims that conform with current practice and clearly delimit the metes and bounds of the invention Applicant seeks to patent.
ADQ14 Datasheet, published 4/13/2018 (“ADQ”) describes the a quad input channel device usable for LIDAR (p.2) and that includes a Kintex-7 FPGA (p. 23). Table 9 on p. 8 explains that the device weighs about 750 grams, operates in a temperature range of 0-45 C as air input to the fan (meaning actual operating temps can be significantly lower). Table 1 shows the device powered by a 12 volt power supply, and operating at a power consumption of 48 watts in some 4 channel modes. ADQ also describes various interfaces and data export to computers made available through the system.
Zynq UltraScale+ SoM with up to 12GB RAM ttargets LiDAR applications, published 10/17/2022 (“Zynq”) describes the use of a Zynq Ultra scale+ FPGA system-on-a-chip for LiDAR applications.
Batcheller, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0078123 (“Batchellar”) details a LIDAR system that attaches to the bottom of a boat for the purposes of bathymetry (Abstract, Fig. 1). Batchellar describes at [0090] the advantages of a lightweight bathymetry system.
Barajas-Olalde, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0317328 (“Barajas”) describes at [0072] the conversion of data recorded in binary format to CSV for further processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
2/25/2026
Prosecution Insights