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 Status
Applicant's preliminary amendments filed on 4/25/24 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the appears to be a double inclusion issue for the claim term “a third pulse train” since it was already recited in parent claim 9. It is suggested to replace the article “a” with --the-- to avoid the double inclusion issue.
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.
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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 20, in the last/bottom 6-lines of each claim which recite the similar “wherein” clause, it is unclear if the list of 5 limitations/configurations that are listed after the “:” colon punctuation are a list of 5 alternatives or if it is only the last 2 limitations that are listed in the alternative. For examination purposes, it is assumed that the list of all 5 limitations/configurations are listed in the alternative since the list includes “or” which is assumed to apply to all 5 limitations/configurations after the “wherein” clause, and it is thus assumed that the claims should recite: wherein the second pulse train and the first pulse train --comprise one of--: .
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 14-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan US20200200910.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 20, Pan discloses, in Figures 2-13,
A control method (Pan; Fig. 2-13), comprising: controlling a transmitter (Pan; emitting module 1320) to transmit a first pulse train (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11), wherein the first pulse train comprises M1 first-type pulses and M2 second-type pulses (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11), M1 is an integer greater than 1 (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M1 = 2 pulses), and M2 is a positive integer (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M2 = 4 pulses); and controlling the transmitter to transmit a second pulse train (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11), wherein the second pulse train comprises at least one of M3 first-type pulses or M4 second-type pulses (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11), and M3 and M4 are positive integers (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M3 = 1 pulse and M4 = 2 pulses), wherein a power of a first-type pulse is greater than a power of a second-type pulse (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the power amplitudes of M1/M3 are greater/stronger than the amplitudes of M2/M4 in their corresponding pulse trains), and wherein the second pulse train and the first pulse train: have different transmission time periods (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the first pulse train transmission period is earlier than the second pulse train transmission period); correspond to different sub-emitters; correspond to different pixels in a detection field of view; correspond to different detection fields of view; or correspond to different sub-receivers (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11) (only 1 of the 5 listed limitations/configurations need to be met/satisfied per the 35 USC 112(b) assumption described above since the list includes “or”);
A control apparatus (Pan; Fig. 2-13; lidar system 1300 with control unit 1310), comprising: at least one processor (Pan; [0011, 0103] processors); and one or more memories (Pan; [0103] memory with instructions) coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform operations;
A LiDAR (Pan; Fig. 2-13; lidar system 1300), comprising a control apparatus (Pan; control unit 1310) and a transmitter (Pan; emitting module 1320), wherein the control apparatus is configured to perform a control method (Pan; Fig. 2-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
919
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pan’s labeled Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: generating a point cloud based on at least the first pulse train and the second pulse train, wherein the first pulse train and the second pulse train correspond to different point clouds (Pan; [0090] 3D point cloud; separate point clouds generated for each pulse train due to the time/temporal spacing between their staggered transmission times).
Regarding claim 5, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 1, wherein for the first pulse train, the M1 first-type pulses comprise M1 first pulses with a same power (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M1 have the same power), the M2 second-type pulses comprise K types of second pulses, powers of the K types of second pulses are different, a sum of quantities of the K types of second pulses is M2, and K is a positive integer (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the two sets of K-types correspond to the 2 different power amplitudes designated in M2, and the summation of 2 lower-power pulses and 2 higher-power pulses equals to the 4-total number of M2 pulses).
Regarding claim 6, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 5, wherein the M1 first-type pulses and the M2 second-type pulses are transmitted in a plurality of detection cycles, and a pulse train transmitted in each detection cycle comprises at least one of one or more of the M1 first pulses or one or more types of the K types of second pulses (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; [0064] “operations repeated” as a plurality of detection cycles for Fig. 6 and 11).
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 6, wherein pulse trains transmitted in any two detection cycles are the same (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; [0064] “operations repeated” as a plurality of detection cycles for Fig. 6 and 11).
Regarding claim 8, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 6, wherein when a pulse train transmitted in any detection cycle comprises one or more of the M1 first pulses and one or more types of the K types of second pulses, a time interval between a first pulse and an adjacent second pulse is not less than a time interval corresponding to a detection blind area of the first pulse (Pan; [0050] “avoid the measurement blind zone” by emitting dual pulses).
Regarding claim 15, Pan discloses the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Pan discloses the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, Pan discloses the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3, 9-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Baron US20220390569.
Regarding claim 3, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first pulse train (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11) belongs to a first pulse train set (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the earlier set of pulses on the left-side) and a second pulse train set (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the later set of pulses on the right-side), each pulse train in the first pulse train set comprises one or more first-type pulses (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M1), and each pulse train in the second pulse train set comprises one or more second-type pulses (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; M2).
Pan is silent regarding wherein: a time interval between first-type pulses corresponding to any two pulse trains in the first pulse train set is determined based on a far-field angular resolution; and a time interval between second-type pulses corresponding to any two pulse trains in the second pulse train set is determined based on a near-field angular resolution.
Baron teaches wherein: a time interval between first-type pulses corresponding to any two pulse trains in the first pulse train set is determined based on a far-field angular resolution; and a time interval between second-type pulses corresponding to any two pulse trains in the second pulse train set is determined based on a near-field angular resolution (Baron; Fig. 4A; [0058-0060] operate between a short-range mode and a long-range mode with corresponding short-range angular scan/resolution and long-range angular scan/resolution; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time intervals as taught by Pan to be based on the far-field angular resolution and near-field angular resolution as taught by Baron for the purpose of providing “the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode” (Baron; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode”).
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses The control method according to claim 1, wherein the control method further comprises: controlling a receiver to receive a first echo signal (Pan; receiving module 1330); and controlling the transmitter (Pan; emitting module 1320) to transmit a third pulse train (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; [0064] “operations repeated” as a plurality of detection cycles for Fig. 6 and 11).
Pan is silent regarding wherein the third pulse train is different from the first pulse train.
Baron teaches wherein the third pulse train is different from the first pulse train (Baron; Fig. 4A; [0058-0060] operate between a short-range mode and a long-range mode with corresponding short-range angular scan/resolution and long-range angular scan/resolution; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the third pulse train as taught by Pan to be different from the first pulse train as taught by Baron for the purpose of providing “the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode” (Baron; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode”).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Pan teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The control method according to claim 9, wherein the third pulse train comprises M5 first-type pulses, and a value of M5 is greater than a value of M1 (Baron; Fig. 4A; [0058-0060] operate between a short-range mode and a long-range mode with corresponding short-range angular scan/resolution and long-range angular scan/resolution; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode; the M5 corresponds to the long-range mode).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Pan teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The control method according to claim 9, wherein at least one of the following: a time interval between a first-type pulse transmitted in each detection cycle in the third pulse train and a start moment of the detection cycle is different from a time interval between a first-type pulse transmitted in each detection cycle in the first pulse train and a start moment of the detection cycle; or a time sequence interval between a first-type pulse and an adjacent second-type pulse that are transmitted in each detection cycle in the third pulse train is different from a time sequence interval between a first-type pulse and an adjacent second-type pulse that are transmitted in each detection cycle in the first pulse train (Pan; see labeled Fig. 11; the pulse trains are staggered at different times) (Baron; Fig. 4A; [0058-0060] operate between a short-range mode and a long-range mode with corresponding short-range angular scan/resolution and long-range angular scan/resolution; [0060] “provide the desired effective range and desired angular extents of the scan field for each different operating mode; the M5 corresponds to the long-range mode; the emissions are staggered when switching between modes).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Pan teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The control method according to claim 9, wherein before the controlling the transmitter to transmit a third pulse train, the method further comprises: determining that the first echo signal does not comprise a valid signal or comprises a plurality of valid signals (Pan; [0063] continue process if determine to have clear, non-overlapping waveform, and terminate process if do not have clear, non-overlapping waveform).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Pan teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The control method according to claim 9, wherein a time interval between a first-type pulse of the first pulse train and a start moment of the first pulse train is obtained through coding (Pan; [0053] “beneficially allow for detection of the far-field obstacle being performed without interference of the stray light” by selecting the time interval and start moment such that “The echo signals corresponding to the far-field may be distinguishable (i.e. not submerged) from the waveform training of the stray light since the echo signals may be received after the saturation period of the detector” which is achieved through coding).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Pan teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stutz US20160274237 teaches light pulses and light signal trains.
Rainko US20220011434 teaches, in Figure 5-2, pulse trains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 7/14/26
Prosecution Insights