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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “scanning control member” in claim 17, “main housing” in claim 38, “probe housing” in claim 38, “display component” in claim 40, “prompting component” in claim 40, and “bias voltage module” in claim 41 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comment after “processing apparatus is” in the 3rd line of the indentation of “a processing apparatus” should be deleted for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“light emitting assembly, configured to generate an emitting signal and sequentially emit a plurality of groups of emitted light within a current frame scanning duration according to the emitting signal; wherein the emitting signal comprises time information indicating an emission start moment of each group of the emitted light” and “receiving end assembly, configured to convert at least one group of reflected light formed by reflecting the emitted light at at least one target object in a target scene into an output signal; wherein a type of the output signal is electrical signal” in claim 1;
“light receiving assembly, configured to sequentially receive a plurality of groups of reflected light reflected by the target object and sequentially convert the plurality of groups of reflected light into corresponding first optical signals” in claim 10;
“scanning control member, configured to generate a scanning control signal”; “a light scanning assembly, configured to deflect the emitted light emitted by the light emitting assembly according to the scanning control signal, to be irradiated to at least one of the target object in the target scene, and/or deflect at least one group of the reflected light reflected by at least one of the target object, to be received by the receiving end assembly”; and “a processing apparatus, electrically connected to the light emitting assembly, the scanning control member, and the receiving end assembly, respectively, wherein the processing apparatus is, configured to determine at least one of a distance to the target object, a reflectivity of the target object, a directional angle of the target object, or a contour of the target object, based on at least one of the scanning control signal, the emitting signal, and the output signal” in claim 17;
“light scanning members sequentially disposed along an optical path of the emitted light, wherein one in two adjacent light scanning members of the light scanning members deflects the emitted light to the other light scanning member; wherein the at least two light scanning members have different scanning modes; the scanning modes comprising at least one of an area of a reflective surface of the light scanning member, a scanning direction, a scanning angle range, a scanning frequency or a scanning dimension” in claim 18;
“first scanning member and a second scanning member; the first scanning member sequentially deflects a plurality of groups of the emitted light within the current frame scanning duration along a second scanning direction, to be irradiated to the second scanning member; and the second scanning member deflects along a first scanning direction the emitted light deflected by the first scanning member, to be irradiated to the target object; wherein the second scanning direction is parallel to a length direction of the receiving field of view, the first scanning direction is different from the second scanning direction, and the designated direction is the first scanning direction” in claim 19; and
“prompting component, configured to output a prompting signal based on at least one of the distance, the reflectivity or the contour” in claim 40.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-42 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 claim 1, claim limitation “light emitting assembly” and regarding claim 17, claim limitation “scanning control member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is void of any structure for the claimed terms, and “light emitting assembly” merely appears as a box in Fig. 2, ref 200. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-41 are rejected based upon dependency on claim 1.
Claims 18-41 are rejected based upon dependency on claim 17.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “smaller than a first ratio threshold, and the first ratio threshold is 0.5, 0.1, 0.01, or 0.001.” It is unclear how “0.1, 0.01, or 0.001” limit the claim, as if the threshold is smaller than 0.5 the condition is met.
Claim 5 is rejected based upon dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “greater than a second ratio threshold, and the second ratio threshold is 1, 10, 100, 10000 or 1000000.” It is unclear how “10, 100, 10000 or 1000000” limit the claim, as if the threshold is greater than 1 the condition is met.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “smaller than a third ratio threshold, and the third ratio threshold is 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 or 0.0001.” It is unclear how “0.01, or 0. 001, 0.0001 or 0.0001” limit the claim, as if the threshold is smaller than 0.1 the condition is met.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “smaller than a fourth ratio threshold, and the fourth ratio threshold is 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 or 0.9.” It is unclear how “0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5” limit the claim, as if the threshold is smaller than 0.9 the condition is met.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “greater than or equal to a fifth ratio threshold, and the fifth ratio threshold is 2, 4, 8, 16, 100, 1000 or 10000.” It is unclear how “4, 8, 16, 100, 1000 or 10000” limit the claim, as if the threshold is greater than 2 the condition is met.
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 1-41 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 claimed limitation lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C.112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 Sec. IV.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-50 are allowed.
Claims 1-42 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 43, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a laser measurement method, the method comprising, among other essential elements, wherein within the current frame scanning duration, a position of a receiving field of view in the target scene changes according to a first designated rule and/or a shape of the receiving field of view changes according to a second designated rule; from an emission start moment at which corresponding emitted light is emitted, an emitting field of view is located in the current receiving field of view within a preset receiving duration, and an area of the receiving field of view is greater than or equal to twice an area of the emitting field of view; wherein the first designated rule comprises a change along a designated direction, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 44-50 are dependent from claim 43 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a laser system, the system comprising, among other essential elements, wherein within the current frame scanning duration, a position of a receiving field of view of the receiving end assembly in the target scene changes according to a first designated rule and/or a shape of the receiving field of view changes according to a second designated rule; from an emission start moment at which corresponding emitted light is emitted, an emitting field of view of the light emitting assembly is located in the current receiving field of view within a preset receiving duration, and an area of the receiving field of view is greater than or equal to twice an area of the emitting field of view; wherein the first designated rule comprises a change along a designated direction, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 2-42 are dependent from claim 1 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pacala (US 2022/0120906 A1) teaches a synchronized image capturing for electronic scanning lidar systems, Figs. 2A-5B, and includes an emitter and receiving end assembly, and an emitter controller configured to activate a subset of the plurality of light emitters at a time, a TOF sensor controller configured to synchronize the readout of individual TOF photosensors concurrently with the firing of corresponding light emitters, and an image sensor controller configured to capture an image that is representative of the field during the emission cycle, but does not teach the above claimed limitations.
Kirillov (US 2020/0103507) teaches a LIDAR system including a multiplexer configured to, for each reading cycle, selectively couple receiving pixels of the at least one receiving column to the plurality of output channels based on the receiving direction, while decoupling non-receiving pixels from the plurality of output channels based on the receiving direction, but does not teach the above claimed limitations.
Hall (US 2019/0293796) teaches a LIDAR system including a light control subsystem that (a) controls an emission timing of the light source and (b) controls a capture timing of the light sensor array relative to the emission timing of the light source, and (4) a depth measurement subsystem that generated depth measurements of at least some of the field of view based at least in part on output from the light sensor array, where operation of the light control subsystem is based at least in part on prior knowledge of the field of view, but does not teach the above claimed limitations.
Yoo (US 2020/0200877) teaches a LIDAR system including a controller configured to receive feedback information and modify a center of projection of the field of view in a vertical direction based on the feedback information, but does not teach the above claimed limitations.
Chen (US 2026/0133293) teaches a similar device, but is from the same inventors and was filed after the pending application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights