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):
(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 10, 15 and 16 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.
Claims 10, 15 and 16 recites “the lidar system” in line 4 of claim 10. This recitation creates ambiguity since there are two “a lidar system” in claim 10. It is unclear which one of the two lidar system such recitation refers to. Thus, it is unclear how much weigh is to be given to the preamble. Clarification is required to properly construct the scope of claims 10, 15 and 16.
Claims 11-14 and 17 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claims 10, 15 and 16.
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)(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) 10 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Canady et al (US 20210197859).
Regarding claims 10, 15-17, Canady et al teach a method, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium ([0086]) and a device (along with any system include such a device) for ascertaining a visual range degradation ([0008]-heavy fog) of a LiDAR system, comprising the following steps: a. providing a data point cloud of a LiDAR system that maps objects in a field of view of the LiDAR system ([0022], [0094]); b. analyzing ([0047] intensity distribution of ROI e.g. gradient) at least a portion of the data point cloud (data point as shown in figure 3) to ascertain an edge dimension (gradient) of at least one object in the data point cloud; and c. (i) ascertaining a visual range of the LiDAR system based on the edge dimension and/or (ii) initiating a process ([0017], [0030], [0100]) for degradation correction for the LiDAR system based on the edge dimension.
Regarding claim 13, Canady et al teach wherein, in step c), there is a check to see whether the edge dimension exceeds or falls below a predefined limit value ([0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Canady et al teach he analysis in step b) is carried out in three spatial dimensions. That is, [0047] teaches the lidar data is associated with azimuth and beam index (elevation) and distance.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canady et al in view Wheeler et al (US 20190120947)
Regarding claim 11, Canady et al teach the invention set forth above. Canady et al do not teach the analysis in step b) includes use of an edge detection algorithm which includes a filter. Wheeler et al teach ([0007]) an edge detection algorithm which includes a filter. That is, the difference intensity between adjacent pixels. It would have been obvious at the time of invention to utilize a filter to determine edges of point data (see at least Wheeler [0007]) to properly identify the edge as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY KO whose telephone number is (571)272-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/TONY KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
TK
Prosecution Insights