DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US Patent No. 12,066,524. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims.
A rejection based on non-statutory double patenting (obviousness-type) is a judicially created doctrine intended to prevent a patentee from unjustly extending the time period of patent protection for an invention. When evaluating ODP, the claims of the application are compared with the claims of the issued patent. Parent Patent Claim 1 recites a radar data processing method comprising obtaining radar data collected by a receiving area array, performing data fusion processing based on a floodlight distance value when the radar data is saturated, and determining a target object's distance from the resulting fusion. Parent Patent Claim 5 depends on Claim 1 and explicitly introduces the step of correcting the distance value of the target object based on a distance between a unit of the floodlights and the target object, and a distance between a receiving unit and the target object. Application 18/767,986 Claim 1 combines these features, claiming a method that executes saturation detection, saturation depth determination, floodlight number mapping, floodlight distance retrieval, data fusion, distance determination, and subsequent distance correction based on unit-to-target spacings. The subject matter claimed in application 18/767,986 is not patentably distinct from the subject matter already patented in US Patent No. 12,066,524. The combination of steps claimed here represents an obvious variation or a direct aggregation of elements already claimed and disclosed across independent and dependent claims of the parent patent.
Claim Number
Claim Type
Scope & Specific Limitations
Claim 1
Independent (Method)
Obtains radar data collected by a receiving area array. If saturated, performs data fusion processing based on a floodlight distance value. Determines a target object's distance based on the fusion result. Corrects the distance based on the distance between a flooding unit/target and a receiving unit/target. Emitting unit has multiple diodes/lasers whose main energy corresponds to receiving array blocks, with floodlight irradiating adjacent arrays.
Claim 2
Dependent (on Claim 1)
Specifies the data fusion steps when saturated: determines saturation depth, determines number of floodlights based on depth, obtains floodlight distance value for each unit, and performs fusion.
Claim 3
Dependent (on Claim 2)
Details how saturation depth is determined: either by integrating collected radar data or calculating the duration where echo intensity exceeds a saturation threshold.
Claim 4
Dependent (on Claim 2)
Specifies that determining the number of floodlights involves inputting the saturation depth into a depth lookup table.
Claim 5
Dependent (on Claim 2)
Specifies that performing data fusion involves inputting the floodlight distance value into a filter for processing.
Claim 6
Dependent (on Claim 2)
Adds pre-fusion steps: obtaining distances between floodlight units and the main unit, setting weights based on distance, and calculating a weighted average during data fusion.
Claim 7
Dependent (on Claim 6)
Adds post-fusion adjustment: adjusting weights or matching numbers of floodlights based on multiple pieces of historical data.
Claim 8
Dependent (on Claim 1)
Specifies that the radar data is obtained by controlling a LiDAR to scan in a preset scanning mode.
Claim 9
Dependent (on Claim 1)
Adds a fallback condition: if the radar data is not saturated, it determines the target's distance directly using the standard radar data.
Claim 10
Dependent (on Claim 1)
Explicitly adds the distance correction step based on spacing between the floodlight units, receiving unit, and target object.
Claim 11
Independent (Device)
Protects a terminal device comprising hardware/software modules: an obtaining unit, a fusion unit (for saturated data using floodlight distance), and a determining unit.
Claim 12
Dependent (on Claim 11)
Details the internal structure of the fusion unit, breaking it down into a depth determining unit, floodlight determining unit, distance determining unit, and data fusion unit.
Claim 13
Dependent (on Claim 12)
Specifies that the floodlight determining unit uses a depth lookup table with the saturation depth.
Claim 14
Dependent (on Claim 12)
Specifies that the data fusion unit processes data by inputting the floodlight distance value into a filter.
Claim 15
Dependent (on Claim 11)
Adds a correction unit to the device to adjust target distance values based on unit-to-target spacings.
Claim 16
Independent (System/Medium)
Protects a computer-implemented system comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program that, when executed, carries out the core method steps of Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. As to claims 1-15, there is no prior art to reject claims 1-16. However, applicants should resolve the double patent rejection to place the application in condition for allowance. An update search needs to be performed after the next response from applicant.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i. McGuire (US 20200300978 A1) discloses in a LIDAR system includes a detector array comprising a first detector region and a second detector region, wherein the first detector region comprises a first detector and the second detector region comprises a second detector, at least one optical element configured to separate light received at the at least one optical element into a first portion and a second portion, incident on the first detector and the second detector, respectively, wherein the at least one optical element is configured to alter a characteristic of the light, and a circuit configured to receive a first detection signal from the first detector responsive to the first portion of the light that is incident thereon and a second detection signal from the second detector responsive to the second portion of the light that is incident thereon, and to generate an improved signal based on the first and second detection signals, and
ii. Subasingha (US 20190293768 A1) discloses in a LIDAR device can accurately calculate distances to objects in an environment by classifying a signal received from a sensor as being a particular type of signal (e.g., saturated or unsaturated) and selecting, based on the type of signal, a detector for processing the received signal from among multiple detectors. For example, the multiple detectors may include different programming and/or circuitry for determining a time delay of arrival (TDOA) between a time that a light pulse was emitted to a time that a pulse reflected off an object was received at a light sensor. The output of the selected detector may then be used to calculate a distance to the object from which the received signal was reflected.
Conclusion
5. If the claimed invention is amended, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification, which dictate(s) the structure/description relied upon to assist the Examiner in proper interpretation of the amended language and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571) 270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 8:30 – 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights