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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 3-4, 11, and 13-14 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.
Claim 3 recites the reference signal extraction phase (RSEP) may comprise a periodic phase over time, or a phase triggered by a temperature drift. These present separate issues for indefiniteness.
What constitutes “a periodic phase over time” is unclear. The written description says RSEP may be triggered and repeated periodically over time (Paragraph 0095), which does not clarify “a periodic phase over time.” The following interpretations are possible:
Time between RSEPs is fixed. For example, the reference signal extraction phase may be triggered after a certain time limit has passed (Paragraph 0095). In this case, it is not necessary to specify an amount of time between RSEPs, but it is necessary to specify that time between RSEPs is fixed.
Time between RSEPs may vary. For example, the lidar system may repeat RSEP to dynamically update and recalibrate the reference signal (Paragraph 0095). In this case, it is necessary to specify either
How time between RSEPs is determined, and/or
“Other factors” than “drifts in temperature” which trigger RSEP.
A temperature drift is indefinite terminology, and the written description does not indicate how large a temperature drift must be to trigger RSEP.
Each issue renders Claim 3 indefinite. Dependent Claim 4 fails to resolve this issue with Claim 3 and is summarily rejected. For examination, given the broad (e.g. “certain time limit,” “certain temperature threshold,” “drifts in temperature”) and non-exhaustive (e.g. “other factors”) list of triggers for RSEP, anything may trigger RSEP at any time, including during a system initialization phase. Regarding dependent Claim 4, the processor is configured to disable such RSEP in response to detecting an object.
Claim 11 recites wherein the received signal comprises a second signal portion corresponding to one of the plurality of light pulses scattered by a second target located at a second distance (LL 1-3). However, the received signal already comprises a signal portion corresponding to one of the plurality of light pulses (Claim 1, 2nd limitation, LL 3-4). It is unclear if the second signal portion and the (first) signal portion correspond to the same or different light pulses, thereby rendering Claim 11 indefinite. For examination, they may correspond to different light pulses.
Claim 13 recites wherein the processor is configured to: superimpose a copy of the reference signal shifted by a predetermined time offset to the reference signal to form a modified version of the reference signal, wherein the reference signal subtracted from the received signal is the modified version of the reference signal (emphasis added). The second “wherein” clause does not clarify the modified version of the reference signal, but instead provides a distinct method for forming a modified version of the reference signal, rendering Claim 13 indefinite. Dependent Claim 14 fails to resolve this issue in Claim 13 and is summarily rejected. For examination, the second “wherein” will be treated as “or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferreira (US 2020/0284883).
Regarding Claim 1, Ferreira discloses A system [0430-480, #10 of Fig. 1], comprising:
a light source [0431, #42 of Fig. 1] configured to emit an output beam comprising a plurality of light pulses [0431, #120 of Fig. 1 may be pulsed] through a window [2613, #250 of Fig. 2];
a receiver [0433, #50 of Fig. 1], wherein the receiver is configured to detect a reference signal [2615-2616, #262 in Fig. 2], the reference signal corresponding to one of the plurality of light pulses reflected from the window [2616, #262 may be reflection of #261 from #250 in Fig. 2], and wherein the receiver is configured to detect a received signal [2613, #130 of Fig. 1], the received signal comprising a signal portion corresponding to one of the plurality of light pulses scattered by a target located at a distance [0440, #100 of Fig. 1 contains objects];
and a processor [0480, #62 of Fig. 1] configured to determine the distance to the target using the received signal [0449], including by being configured to subtract the reference signal from the received signal [2918, 3587, compare; 4446].
Regarding Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 20, a compensating signal is a type of learning vector and thereby a type of reference signal, so the rejection of Claim 1 also applies, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 2, Ferreira also discloses wherein the receiver is configured to: detect the reference signal in response to a trigger of a reference signal extraction phase [3592].
Regarding Claim 3, Ferreira also discloses wherein the reference signal extraction phase comprises one of the following: a system initialization phase, a periodic phase over time, or a phase triggered by a temperature drift [2616, whenever #262 incident on #50 in Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is configured to: disable the reference signal extraction phase in response to detecting an object [2616, whenever #262 not incident on #50 in Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 5, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is configured to: update the reference signal, comprising:
detecting an additional signal by the receiver [2615-2616, #262 in Fig. 2], wherein the additional signal corresponds to another one of the plurality of light pulses reflected from the window [2616, #262 is may be reflection of #261 from #250 in Fig. 2];
and updating the reference signal at least in part based on a statistical measure of the reference signal and the additional signal [3657-3660, deviation matrix D, Fig. 180A].
Regarding Claim 6, Ferreira also discloses wherein the receiver is configured to: filter the reference signal including by applying a filtering window around a peak of a pulse in the reference signal [3627, truncated #17806 in Figs. 178B-G], wherein a width of the filtering window is at least in part based on a width of the pulse [truncated to width]. This applies to Claim 16, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 7, Ferreira also discloses wherein the receiver is configured to: temporally shift the reference signal in response to a detected jitter in the received signal prior to subtracting the reference signal from the received signal [0498-0499, time delays]. This applies to Claim 17, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 8, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is configured to: align a rising edge of a peak of a pulse in the reference signal with a rising edge of a peak of a pulse in the received signal [0498, edge detection; 3584-3587, #17734 inherently aligns #17704 with reference signals in Fig. 177C]. This applies to Claim 18, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 9, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to determining that the distance to the target is within a predetermined threshold range, determine that the target comprises a blockage on the window [2763, light incident on #720 in Fig. 7 signals both near range object and debris]. This applies to Claim 19, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 10, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a type of the blockage on the window at least in part based on one or more of the following: a size, a width, a magnitude, a power level, or an energy level of a peak in the received signal that corresponds to the blockage on the window [2763].
Regarding Claim 11, Ferreira also discloses wherein the received signal comprises a second signal portion corresponding to one of the plurality of light pulses scattered by a second target located at a second distance [1380, #9806 in Fig. 98; 3572-3583], the processor is configured to: determine the second distance to the second target [0449; 3572-3583] after the reference signal is subtracted from the received signal [2918, 3587, compare]; in response to determining that the second distance is above the predetermined threshold range [2763, no light incident on #720 in Fig. 7], determine that the second target is a downrange object [2763, #130 incident on #50 in Fig. 7]; and determine the type of the blockage on the window at least in part based on one or more of the following: a size, a width, a magnitude, a power level, or an energy level of a second peak in the received signal that corresponds to the second target [2763].
Regarding Claim 12, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is configured to: provide an indication of a type of the blockage on the window [2763].
Regarding Claim 13, Ferreira also discloses wherein the processor is configured to: superimpose a copy of the reference signal shifted by a predetermined time offset to the reference signal to form a modified version of the reference signal [3589, #17806-3 in Fig. 178D is superposition], wherein [or] the reference signal subtracted from the received signal is the modified version of the reference signal [3182, wherein one sensor signal is reference to another sensor signal].
Regarding Claim 14, Ferreira also discloses wherein the predetermined time offset is determined based on a time period between two of the plurality of light pulses that are consecutive to each other [3182, second emission pattern].
Relevant Prior Art
In addition to the prior art used above, the examiner identified the following relevant prior art:
Hinderling (US 2017/0123052) discloses signal mixing [0099].
Drummer (US 10,340,651) discloses
Signal mixing [C 12 LL 45-50],
Reducing jitter [C 21 L 55-C 22 L 20], and
Detecting amount and type of blockage [C 25 L 60-C 26 L 35]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALEX DECARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:45 a.m. - 5:15 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights