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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite “a lidar system” and “a lidar”, the scope of each not being readily understood by the instant disclosure. Particularly, the specification does not recite, describe, or define what physical components comprise the claimed “lidar system” nor what is intended by “a lidar”, as lidar is known in the art as a method of laser rangefinding but the claim appears to use the term as a physical component. The figures merely include physical representations of the “lidar system” as 1 and “lidar” 300, and do not contribute to a more detailed understanding of the limitations at issue than does the written specification. Thus, for purposes of examination, the instant application does not provide sufficient scope of what is intended by “the lidar system” or “a lidar” as claimed.
Claim 5 recites “a restoration section” which appears to act as a storage or rest position of the locking system, possibly when the sliding system is unlocked. However, none of the claims, specification or drawings sufficiently present the intended scope of this limitation, what a restoration section is, what the restoration section does, and how the restoration section is physically and mechanically related to the remaining system components. Thus, for purposes of examination, the instant application does not provide sufficient scope of what is intended by “a restoration section” as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 1 recites “a lidar” and “the lidar” which is indefinite because lidar stands for “light detection and ranging” but must include a physical element in order to establish the “lidar” as a physical element. As written, “lidar” merely refers to the act of light detection and ranging but the claim limitation appears to intend to refer to the “lidar” as a physical element, such as a lidar sensor, that is capable of physical moving relative to other physical components. The drawings illustrate a physical lidar component (such as 300), but the specification fails to describe what a physical “lidar” is intended to be, as being part of the overarching “lidar system” 1.
Claim 5 recites “a restoration section” which appears to act as a storage or rest position of the locking system, possibly when the sliding system is unlocked. However, none of the claims, specification or drawings sufficiently present the intended scope of this limitation, what a restoration section is, what the restoration section does, and how the restoration section is physically and mechanically related to the remaining system components. Thus, this limitation renders the claim(s) indefinite due to the scope of the term at issue being indeterminate.
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) 1-3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by KR 2019/0011417.
1: KR 2019/0011417 discloses a LiDAR system for vehicles [the claims describe a sensor in a vehicle; p. 3, par. 8 – laser radar 10; p. 3 describes the laser radar system installed in a vehicle] comprising:
a housing having an opening [the claims describe that a first cover unit is equipped with a sensor and a second cover portion on which the first cover portion is mounted so as to be slidably movable; the first and second cover units comprise the housing and at least the second cover is described in claim 1 to includes an opening extending in a first direction];
a LiDAR configured to slide in a front-rear direction within the housing and selectively deployed to the outside through the opening [provided by the description in the claims and from the citation for the limitation above, the first cover unit equipped with the sensor slides in the first direction in contact with a sliding guide portion in the opening of the second cover portion; the sliding allows for the first cover unit equipped with the sensor to slide from a front to rear direction with respect to the housing as in fig. 1, for instance, wherein the front corresponds to the location where sensor “10” is visible and the rear corresponds to the portion of 10 not visible in the figure, extending along an axis with respect to the x-axis indicated in the figure; the grooves described in the claims correspond to the extension of the lidar sensor in and out of the housing];
guide brackets disposed on both side surfaces of the LiDAR and configured to guide sliding movement of the LiDAR [the claims describe at least two sliding glide portions that facilitate the movement cited in the limitation above]; and
a locking unit configured to prevent the LiDAR from being pushed into the housing by an external force in a state in which the LiDAR is deployed [the claims describe a locking groove of the sliding guide unit].
2: KR 2019/0011417 discloses each of the guide brackets includes a rail extending toward the opening in the front-rear direction, and a sliding groove to which the locking unit is connected is formed on a surface of the rail facing the LiDAR [a rail is inherent, as it would be required for the guide units to move as claimed in the prior art reference; the claims describe a locking protrusion of a groove of the slide portions].
3: KR 2019/0011417 discloses the locking unit includes: a support fixed to a rear surface of the LiDAR; a stopper having a locking pin inserted into the sliding groove and rotatably coupled to the support; and a plate spring configured to rotate the stopper by applying an elastic force to the stopper through a free end in a state in which a fixed end is fixed to the support [the claims describe that the protrusion relating to the sliding guide unit is coupled to an elastic member 13, wherein the protrusion is received in a vertical hole when the elastic member is compressed, and protrudes into the opening and is engaged with the groove when the elastic member is restored; the claims also describe a locking protrusion related to the locking groove of above; p. 5 describes employing a plate spring].
10: KR 2019/0011417 discloses the LiDAR has rail holes coupled to the rail on both side surfaces [the claims describe that sliding unit has a plurality of vertical holes to engage during sliding; since the lidar is part of the cover units which also comprise the sliding glide unit.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2019/0011417 in view of WO 2022/271978 A1.
4: KR 2019/0011417 teaches the plate spring from the rejection of claim 3. KR 2019/0011417 explicitly lacks, but WO 2022/271978 A1 teaches the stopper includes a first body coupled to a coupling hole formed in the support through a rotating shaft provided on one surface of the first body and a second body extending from the first body, the first body has a contact surface contacting the free end of the spring in an elastically deformed state and a locking groove into which the free end of the plate spring is inserted so that the elastic deformation of the plate spring is released, and the second body has the locking pin on the other surface of the first body opposite to the one surface [beginning at 0055, a trailer to be connected to a tractor employs a trailer angle encoder that includes an arm 802 attached via a pivot 804 to existing flange 806; an optical encoder 808 positioned at a first end away from pivot 804 or arm 802 such that it is positioned beneath and pivoted away from locking jaws 810; as well as a magnet mounted to a rotatable shaft of the optical encoder; a solenoid that operates to compress a spring 818 and pull a second end, opposite the first end, or arm 802 such that disc 812 and pins 814 are retracted away from locking jaws 810 as tractor 104 moves beneath trailer 106.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicular lidar and locking systems disclosed in KR 2019/0011417 with the vehicular lidar and locking systems with a rotating element disclosed in WO 2022/271978 A1 with a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating a rotational element allows for the alignment and security of coupling component parts of a moving system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, neither alone nor in combination, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention in such a way that the combination of limitations would be rendered anticipatory or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The primary reason(s) for allowance are as follows: KR 2019/0011417 is drawn to a lidar system mounted within a vehicle bumper. It teaches guide rails that lock into place at a desired location so as to facilitate the lidar system moving into and out of a housing. It also teaches a plate spring that is used in the locking of the lidar system into place. It fails to teach the particulars of the sliding groove, locking section, unlocking section, and restoration section as claimed. WO 2022/271978 A1 is drawn to a lidar system attached to a tractor to detect a front end of a trailer to determine the trailer angle relative to the tractor. It teaches employing spring compression, pins, and locking jaws to secure the trailer to the tractor. It also teaches a rotating element for the consideration of aligning component parts of a moving system. It fails to teach the particulars of the sliding groove, locking section, unlocking section, and restoration section as claimed. Thus, the closest prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant, nor would there exist a reasonable motivation to combine prior art with similar components in such a way that does not render the original invention inoperable for its intended purpose.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details of why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights