DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA 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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. 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.
3. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. 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.
5. 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a beam-scanning guide device configured to” in claim 10.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 4, change “an signal” to –a signal--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0182978 A1 by Maleki et al. (hereinafter Maleki).
Regarding Claim 1, Maleki teaches a Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) frequency-sweeping method applied to a Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) system (Fig. 1, Par. [0033, 0049-0052, 0079]), comprising (Fig. 1-18):
obtaining a frequency-sweeping light beam (Fig. 1 @ 102, 108, Par. [0034, 0037, 0100]. Also See Fig. 6-7 and 14);
splitting (Fig. 1 @ 108, Par. [0034, 0100]) the frequency-sweeping light beam into an signal light beam (Fig. 1 @ 108 to 110, Par. [0034, 0100, 0101]) and a local oscillation light beam (Fig. 1 @ 108 to 114, Par. [0034, 0100, 0121]), wherein frequency modulation waveforms of the signal light beam and the local oscillation light beam are completely same (Par. [0100]);
transmitting the signal light beam (Fig. 1 @ 116, Abstract, Par. [0034, 0096, 0102]), wherein the transmitted light beam is reflected after encountering an obstacle (Fig. 1 @ 130, Abstract, Par. [0034, 0096, 0102]) to generate a reflected light beam (Fig. 1 @ 130 to 112, Abstract, Par. [0005-0011, 0033, 0102, 0121]); and
detecting (Fig. 1 @ 120, Par. [0121-0122]) a beat frequency (Par. [0141-0142]) between the local oscillation light beam and the reflected light beam to determine a distance of the obstacle (Abstract, Par. [0005-0011, 0033, 0141-0142]),
wherein the frequency-sweeping light beam performs n times of frequency-rising based on a preset frequency-rising slope (Fig. 7 @ 702, Par. [0050]) and performs n times of frequency-falling based on a preset frequency-falling slope (Fig. 7 @ 704, Par. [0050]) in a preset frequency-sweeping ranging period (Fig. 7, Par. [0010, 0047-0048, 0053, 0089, 0098, 0155]: chirp bandwidth), wherein n ≥ 2 (Fig. 7 @ 702, 704, illustrates n ≥ 2), and a frequency-sweeping bandwidth of the frequency-sweeping light beam and a preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth meet the following relationship:
f = fc/n
wherein fc is the preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth, and f is the frequency- sweeping bandwidth (Fig. 7 @ 702, 704, illustrates n ≥ 2, thus satisfy the equation. Note: value of n depends on the preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth. Triangular FMCW, sweep requires 2 sweeps (up and down) by the frequency-sweeping bandwidth (f), therefore, the preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth (fc) is double of the frequency-sweeping bandwidth (f) which is 2f = fc and thus f = fc/n can be calculated).
Regarding Claim 2, Maleki teaches the frequency-sweeping light beam sequentially and continuously performs [n] times of complete periodic frequency-rising and [n] times of complete periodic frequency-falling in the preset frequency-sweeping ranging period, [n] indicates that n is rounded down (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Maleki teaches the frequency-sweeping light beam continuously and alternately executes [n] times of complete periodic frequency-rising and [n] times of complete periodic frequency-falling in the preset frequency-sweeping ranging period, [n] indicates that n is rounded down (Fig. 7 @ 702, 704, raising (702) then falling (704) again raisin (702) and then falling (704) thus teaches continuously and alternately).
Regarding Claim 4, Maleki teaches a distance R of the obstacle measured by the FMCW LiDAR system satisfies the following relationship:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein tc is one half of the preset frequency-sweeping ranging period (Fig. 7 @ 702, Fig. 14A @ 1400), fc is the preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth (Fig. 7, 14A, Par. [0010, 0047-0048, 0053, 0089, 0098, 0155]: chirp bandwidth), fb₁ is a frequency-rising beat frequency in a frequency-rising stage (Fig. 14A @ 1404, Par. [0142]), and fb2 is a frequency-falling beat frequency in a frequency-falling stage (Fig. 14A @ 1406, Par. [0142], thus satisfy the equation).
Regarding Claim 5, Maleki teaches a speed V of the obstacle measured by the FMCW LiDAR system satisfies the following relationship:
PNG
media_image2.png
82
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein tc is one half of the preset frequency-sweeping ranging period (Fig. 7 @ 702, Fig. 14A @ 1400), C₀ is the speed of light, fb₁ is a frequency-rising beat frequency of a frequency-rising stage (Fig. 14A @ 1404, Par. [0142]), fb2 is a frequency-falling beat frequency in a frequency-falling stage (Fig. 14A @ 1406, Par. [0142]), and fo is a frequency of an unmodulated light beam (Par. [0003, 0005, 0011, 0033, 0050, 0142], thus satisfy the equation).
Regarding Claim 6, Maleki teaches n satisfies the following relationship:
PNG
media_image3.png
70
252
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein tc is one half of the preset frequency-sweeping ranging period (Fig. 7 @ 702, Fig. 14A @ 1400), Rmax is a preset maximum ranging distance, and C₀ is the speed of light (Par. [0008, 0037, 0107-0114, 0142], thus satisfy the equation).
Regarding Claim 7, Maleki teaches a Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) system (See Claim 1 rejection above), comprising:
a laser light source configured to generate a frequency-sweeping light beam (See Claim 1 rejection above);
an optical splitter configured to split the frequency-sweeping light beam into a signal light beam and a local oscillation light beam, wherein frequency modulation waveforms of the signal light beam and the local oscillation light beam are completely the same (See Claim 1 rejection above);
an optical transmitter configured to transmit the signal light beam, wherein the transmitted light beam is reflected to generate a reflected light beam after encountering an obstacle (See Claim 1 rejection above);
an optical receiver configured to receive the reflected light beam (See Claim 1 rejection above);
a detector configured to detect a beat frequency between the local oscillation light beam and the reflected light beam to determine a distance of the obstacle (See Claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the frequency-sweeping light beam performs n times of frequency-rising based on a preset frequency-rising slope and performs n times of frequency-falling based on a preset frequency-falling slope in a preset frequency-sweeping ranging period, wherein n≥2, and a frequency-sweeping bandwidth of the frequency-sweeping light beam and a preset frequency- sweeping total bandwidth meet the following relationship:
f = fc/n
wherein fc is the preset frequency-sweeping total bandwidth, and f is the frequency- sweeping bandwidth (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Maleki teaches the frequency-sweeping light beam sequentially and continuously performs [n] times of complete periodic frequency-rising and [n] times of complete periodic frequency-falling in the preset frequency- sweeping ranging period, [n] indicates that n is rounded down (See Claim 2 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 9, Maleki teaches the frequency- sweeping light beam continuously and alternately executes [n] times of complete periodic frequency-rising and [n] times of complete periodic frequency-falling in the preset frequency- sweeping ranging period, [n] indicates that n is rounded down (See Claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Maleki teaches a beam-scanning guide device (Fig. 1 @ 116, Par. [0034]), configured to adjust an emission direction of the transmitted light beam emitted from the optical transmitter over time to realize beam scanning (Par. [0096, 0101]).
Additional Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of LiDAR.
US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0241139 A1 by Rose et al (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights