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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hallstig, et al., US 2019/0086518 A1.
As per Claim 31, Hallstig teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (¶ 104; “LIDAR system 100” of Figure 6A), the LIDAR system comprising:
one or more processors (¶¶ 102, 106, 118); and
one or more computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions (¶ 129; “stored within the DSPC 268 memory” as in Figure 11) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive an electrical signal generated based on a returned optical signal that is reflected from an object (¶ 121);
determine a first Doppler frequency shift and a second Doppler frequency shift of the returned optical signal over a first duration and a second duration of the electrical signal (¶¶ 111, 115), respectively, wherein the first duration and the second duration partially overlap with each other (¶ 137); and
determine a range to the object based on at least one of the first Doppler frequency shift or the second Doppler frequency shift (¶¶ 121-122).
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 21-30 and 32-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallstig as applied to Claim 31 above, and further in view of Jeong, et al., US 2018/0024246 A1.
As per Claim 21, Hallstig teaches an autonomous vehicle control system (¶ 93) comprising:
one or more processors (¶¶ 102, 106, 118); and
one or more computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions (¶ 129; “stored within the DSPC 268 memory” as in Figure 11) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive an electrical signal generated based on a returned optical signal that is reflected from an object (¶ 121); and
determine a first Doppler frequency shift and a second Doppler frequency shift of the returned optical signal over a first duration and a second duration of the electrical signal (¶¶ 111, 115), respectively, wherein the first duration and the second duration partially overlap with each other (¶ 137); and
determine a range to the object based on at least one of the first Doppler frequency shift or the second Doppler frequency shift (¶¶ 121-122).
Hallstig does not expressly teach controlling at least one of a steering system or a braking system based on the range. Jeong teaches controlling at least one of a steering system or a braking system based on the range (¶¶ 136-138). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the signal measurement mechanism of Hallstig with the vehicle controller of Jeong, in order to expand a field of view over which a vehicle can detect other objects and respond to avoid contact.
As per Claim 22, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to:
transform the electrical signal into a frequency domain to generate a transformed electrical signal (¶¶ 98, 132); and
determine the first Doppler frequency shift of the returned optical signal based on a cross spectrum of the transformed electrical signal (¶¶ 135-138).
As per Claim 23, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: generate the cross spectrum of the transformed electrical signal by processing the transformed electrical signal and a conjugate of a Fourier transform of a phase code (¶¶ 128, 132).
As per Claim 24, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: circular shift the phase code (¶¶ 106, 122) to align a direct current (DC) frequency to a Doppler frequency associated with the electrical signal (¶¶ 109-111, 135-136).
As per Claim 25, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: calculate a cross-correlation (¶ 93; as part of “sophisticated correlation processing techniques”) based on the electrical signal and the Fourier transform of the phase code (¶ 98).
As per Claim 26, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: re-calculate the cross-correlation (¶ 93; as part of “sophisticated correlation processing techniques”) according to an internal associated with a transmission or reception of an optical signal (¶¶ 98, 102).
As per Claim 27, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: apply a Doppler compensated signal with at least one of a shifted version of the Fourier transform of the phase code, a scaled version of the Fourier transform of the phase code, or a phased version of the Fourier transform of the phase code (¶ 193).
As per Claim 28, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to:
adjust the electrical signal by removing the first Doppler frequency shift from the electrical signal to generate an adjusted electrical signal (¶ 237; to a “not shifted” beam); and
determine the range to the object based on the adjusted electrical signal (¶ 229).
As per Claim 29, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on the electrical signal, in-phase and quadrature components of the returned optical signal; and determine a separation of the in-phase and quadrature components (¶¶ 105-106).
As per Claim 30, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a sign of the first Doppler frequency shift based on the separation (¶ 99); and determine movement information indicative of whether the autonomous vehicle is moving closer to or further away from the autonomous vehicle control system based on the sign of the first Doppler frequency shift (¶¶ 114-115; as “sample points” are evaluated).
As per Claim 32, Hallstig teaches an autonomous vehicle (¶¶ 93, 244) comprising:
at least one of a steering system or a braking system (¶ 244; as would be found on “any kind of vehicle, e.g., bus, train, etc.”); and
a vehicle controller comprising one or more processors (¶¶ 102, 106, 118) configured to:
receive an electrical signal generated based on a returned optical signal that is reflected from an object (¶ 121); and
determine a first Doppler frequency shift and a second Doppler frequency shift of the returned optical signal over a first duration and a second duration of the electrical signal (¶¶ 111, 115), respectively, wherein the first duration and the second duration partially overlap with each other (¶ 137); and
determine a range to the object based on at least one of the first Doppler frequency shift or the second Doppler frequency shift (¶¶ 121-122).
Hallstig does not expressly teach controlling the at least one of the steering system or the braking system based on the range. Jeong teaches controlling the at least one of the steering system or the braking system based on the range (¶¶ 136-138). See Claim 21 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 33, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to:
transform the electrical signal into a frequency domain to generate a transformed electrical signal (¶¶ 98, 132); and
determine the first Doppler frequency shift of the returned optical signal based on a cross spectrum of the transformed electrical signal (¶¶ 135-138).
As per Claim 34, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: generate the cross spectrum of the transformed electrical signal by processing the transformed electrical signal and a conjugate of a Fourier transform of a phase code (¶¶ 128, 132).
As per Claim 35, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: circular shift the phase code (¶¶ 106, 122) to align a direct current (DC) frequency to a Doppler frequency associated with the electrical signal (¶¶ 019-111, 135-136).
As per Claim 36, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: calculate a cross-correlation (¶ 93; as part of “spophisticated correlation processing techniques”) based on the electrical signal and the Fourier transform of the phase code (¶ 98).
As per Claim 37, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: re-calculate the cross-correlation (¶ 93; as part of “sophisticated correlation processing techniques”) according to an internal associated with a transmission or reception of an optical signal (¶¶ 98, 102).
As per Claim 38, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: apply a Doppler compensated signal with at least one of a shifted version of the Fourier transform of the phase code, a scaled version of the Fourier transform of the phase code, or a phased version of the Fourier transform of the phase code (¶ 193).
As per Claim 39, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to:
adjust the electrical signal by removing the first Doppler frequency shift from the electrical signal to generate an adjusted electrical signal (¶ 237; to a “not shifted” beam); and
determine the range to the object based on the adjusted electrical signal (¶ 229).
As per Claim 40, Hallstig teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on the electrical signal, in-phase and quadrature components of the returned optical signal; determine a separation of the in-phase and quadrature components (¶¶ 105-106); and determine a sign of the Doppler frequency shift based on the separation (¶ 99).
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable: over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,241,978 (“the ‘978 patent”); over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,709,267 (“the ‘267 patent”); and over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,838,061 (“the ‘061 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘978 patent, the ‘267 patent and the ‘061 patent each teach an autonomous vehicle with a control system that uses sensors to measure Doppler frequency shifts of a set of returned optical signals in comparison with initially transmitted signals, correlates electrical signals in line with the measured Doppler shifts, determines ranges to detected objects in the environment surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and controls a steering and/or a braking system of the autonomous vehicle based on the determined ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661