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 .
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11567180. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of current Application have common subject matter with claims of U.S. Patent No.11567180.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 US 20170343653 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
1. A method, comprising:
generating a plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences for a plurality of emitters(110a-f) in a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device[0048-0050] for(intended use no patentable weight) use in a sequence of scans performed by the LIDAR device such that each emitter of the plurality of emitters has a corresponding time offset sequence of the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences(implicit [0050]), wherein each time offset sequence in the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences has a respective value at a respective order-position for each scan in the sequence of scans and that respective value is different than respective values at that order-position in every other time offset sequence in the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences; and[0048-0052](implicit inserting random delays between transmissions of individual beams 106a-f (transmitted by illuminating array 110a-f) fig. 2d- 2i)
performing the sequence scans by the LIDAR device, wherein each scan in the sequence of scans has a respective emission time period and a respective detection time period, and wherein performing each given scan of the sequence of scans comprises:[fig. 2d-2i]
causing each emitter of the plurality of emitters to emit a respective light pulse during the emission time period for that given scan at a respective time offset in the time offset sequence for that emitter which is at the order-position corresponding to that given scan; and(fig. 2d-2i) [0048-0052]
operating each detector of a plurality of detectors(120) in the LIDAR device to detect light incident on that detector during the detection time period for that given scan. (fig. 2d-2i)
16. A system, comprising:
a plurality of emitters(110), wherein each emitter of the plurality of emitters is configured to illuminate a respective portion of a field-of-view (FOV);(fig. 2d-2i)
a plurality of detectors(120), wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is configured to detect light from a portion of the FOV illuminated by a corresponding emitter of the plurality of emitters; and(fig. 2d-2i)
a controller configured to perform operations comprising:
generating a plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences for the plurality of emitters for use in a sequence of scans such that each emitter of the plurality of emitters has a corresponding time offset sequence of the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences, wherein each time offset sequence in the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences has a respective value at a respective order-position for each scan in the sequence of scans and that respective value is different than respective values at that order-position in every other time offset sequence in the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences, wherein each scan in the sequence of scans has a respective emission time period and a respective detection time period; and [0048-0052]
performing the sequence of scans, wherein each scan in the sequence of scans has a respective emission time period and a respective detection time period, and wherein performing each given scan of the sequence of scans comprises: [0048-0052]
causing each emitter of the plurality of emitters to emit a respective light pulse during the emission time period for that given scan at a respective time offset in the time offset sequence for that emitter which is at the order-position corresponding to that given scan; and[0048-0052](fig. 2d-2i)
operating each detector of the plurality of detectors to detect light incident on that detector during the detection time period for that given scan. [0048-0052](fig. 2d-2i)
5. The method of claim 1, wherein each emitter of the plurality of emitters is configured to illuminate a respective portion of a field-of-view (FOV) of the LIDAR device, and wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors is configured to detect light from a portion of the FOV illuminated by a corresponding emitter of the plurality of emitters.(fig. 2d-2i)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as evidenced by D2 US 20030210609 A1.
Regarding claim 2 D1 teaches listening for the transmission response after the signal transmitted (fig. 1b 1c ) but does not explicitly teach that detection time period begins after the respective emission time period ends
But this is common operational knowledge to place listening/detection period after transmission in order to detect the desired ranges for example D2 explicitly shows on fig. 1-3 different listening period placement after transmission in order to detect desired ranges and signals.
Although D1 does not explicitly say
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences are generated prior to performance of the sequence of scans by the LIDAR device.
It is just simple scheduling operation when you schedule scan in advance instead of generating everything while operating.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pseudo-random time offset sequences are generated during performance of the sequence of scans by the LIDAR device.
It will be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify teachings taught by D1 in order to prepare several random generation patterns which can be executed later without taking additional computational powers or produce random delay on the go in order to preserve memory which used to store the predetermined sequences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-15, 17-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights