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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/6/2025, 1/21/2025 and 6/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/26/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0390568) in view of Gao et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0088844).
With respect to claim 1, Kubota et al disclose: A light detection and ranging (lidar) system [ figure 1 discloses an external sensor (6) including a LIDAR and camera; paragraph [0176] ] comprising: a transmitter configured to emit light pulses into a field of view [ the disclosed LIDAR implicitly includes a transmitter ]; a receiver configured to receive reflected light pulses from the field of view [ the disclosed LIDAR implicitly includes a transmitter ]; an optical element in a transmit path of the transmitter and a receive path of the receiver [ taught by the transmission cover (123); paragraph [0127] states, “…A transmission cover 123 is attached to the opening 122 of the housing 121 in a manner of covering the opening 122 without a gap. The transmission cover 123 is formed of, for example, a transparent or translucent synthetic resin. The transmission cover 123 is attached in a manner of covering the opening 122 so as to cover the front surface areas of the front LiDAR 6f and the front camera 6g that are accommodated in the housing 121. The transmission cover 123 is attached in a manner of covering the front surface areas of the front LiDAR 6f and the front camera 6g,…” ]; and a camera [ taught by camera 6g ], wherein the camera is configured to focus on the optical element to capture at least one image of the optical element [ paragraph [0176] states, “…For example, both the first area 123a and the second area 123b of the transmission cover 123 may be cleaned based on dirt information detected from image data acquired by the camera 6g…”].
Kubuta et al does not explicitly teach that the LIDAR includes a pulse transmitter and pulse receiver.
Figure 1 and paragraph [0027] of Gao et al establish that pulse transmitters and pulse receivers were known components of a LIDAR.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have been reasonably expected to have used the known component in the LIDAR disclosed by Kubota et al.
Claim 18 is rejected by the combination of Kubota et al and Gao et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 19 are met by the control (3) of Kubota et al performing the method disclosed by paragraph [0176], as applied to claims 1 and 18.
Claim 4 is taught by paragraph [0157] of Kubota et al.
Claims 5 and 7 are taught by paragraph [0158] of Kubota et al.
Claim 6 is met by the control (116) sending a dirt signal to the cleaner control unit (113).
Paragraph [0238] of Kubota et al teaches a camera (406g) including light emitting radiation.
Therefore, claims 8 and 20 would have been obvious as a reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan because Kubota et al taught illumination was typical of a camera sensing objects.
Claim 15 is met by the transmission cover (123) disclosed by Kubota et al.
Claim 16 is taught by the transmitter (104) of Gao et al.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0390568) in view of Gao et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0088844), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kudla et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0386876).
Claim 17 would have been an obvious reasonable expectation of a skilled artisan because Kudla et al taught that a detector array was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have performed the required function of light detection.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0390568) in view of Gao et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0088844), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of May et al (United States Patent No. 9,445,057).
The abstract of May et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have processed multiple frames of image date in order to determine if dirt or water droplets are on the lens of a camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used aggregate imaging of multiple frames in the combination of Kubota et al and Gao et al because May et al taught that imaging multiple fames was a known method of detecting occlusions.
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 1-3, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No 12,181,607. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1 of the present application, the claims of USPN 12,181,283 teach or suggest: A light detection and ranging (lidar) system [ taught by line 1 of claim 14 ] comprising: a transmitter configured to emit light pulses into a field of view [ taught by line 3 of claim 14 ]; a receiver configured to receive reflected light pulses from the field of view [ taught by line 4 of claim 14 ]; an optical element in a transmit path of the transmitter and a receive path of the receiver [ taught by line 5 of claim 14 ]; and a camera, wherein the camera is configured to focus on the optical element to capture at least one image of the optical element [ taught by lines 9-11 of claim 14 ].
Claim 18 of the present application is taught by the claims of USPN 12,181,607 as applied to claim 1 of the present application.
Claims 2, 3, 9 and 19 of the present application are taught by claim 16 of USPN 12,181,607.
Claims 8 and 20 of the present application are taught by claim 20 of USPN 12,181,607.
Claims 10-12 of the present application are taught by lines 9-12 of claim 14 of USPN 12,181,607.
Claim 13 of the present application is taught by claim 20 of USPN 12,181,607.
Claims 14 and 16 of the present application are taught by claim 7 of USPN 12,181,607.
Claims 4-7 and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,607 in view of Kubota et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0390568).
Claims 4-7 and 15 would have been obvious in view of the claims of USPN 12,181,607 because they recite known structure of a point cloud measuring LIDAR capable of detecting occlusions, as set forth by paragraphs [0157]-[0158], controls (116, 113) and cover (123) disclosed by Kubota et al.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,607in view of Kudla et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0386876).
Kudla teaches that LIDAR reception optics were known to have used an array of detectors (15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing of a terminal disclaimer with overcoming the non-statutory double patenting rejections cited above, claims 10-14 would be 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights