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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regard to application # 19/007,065 that was filed on 01/21/2025. Claims 22-41 are currently pending and are under examination.
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 22-41 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.
In claim 22, the recitation “…selecting a processing mode for the echo signal based on the at least one feature parameter, detecting the noise signal in the processing mode, and determining a detection threshold based on the noise signal…” in lines 5-7 is a run-on structure that makes it unclear whether “detecting the noise signal in the processing mode” is part of the selection step or a separate step, and what “ in the processing mode” precisely requires. Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In Claim 22 “The noise signal” I’ve introduced As a part of the echo signal, van later treated as something that is actively “determined” or “ filtered” after removing target components. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 25 recites “…filtering the target signal in the echo signal based on the feature information to determine the noise signal…” in lines 7-8. “The target signal” Appears before it is defined or identified. Claim 27 later defines how a target signal is determined, creating a potential circularity or lack of clear sequence. A person of ordinary skill may not know what is being filtered at this stage. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In claim 26 it is not clear to the examiner how “…a standard deviation of the standard deviation of the amplitude information” is determined. The phrasing if not clear and could be read as indefinite without further clarification of the nested calculation. Appropriate correction/clarification required
Claim 27 recites “…determining, as the target signal, a first sampling point in the target window where the feature information exceeds a preset first threshold range…” in lines 3-4. “Exceeds a …threshold range” is ambiguous. A range normally has upper and lower bounds; It is unclear whether this means greater than the upper bound, outside the entire range or something else. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 28 recites “…using a standard deviation involving a maximum number of target windows as the standard deviation of the noise signal.” In lines 5-6. “Involving a maximum number” is vague. Does it mean the window(s) containing the largest number of noise samples, the largest computer standard deviation value, or an aggregate across a maximum count of windows? Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In claim 40, the recitation “…selecting a processing mode for the echo signal based on the at least one feature parameter, detecting the noise signal in the processing mode, and determining a detection threshold based on the noise signal…” in lines 11-40 is a run-on structure that makes it unclear whether “detecting the noise signal in the processing mode” is part of the selection step or a separate step, and what “ in the processing mode” precisely requires. Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In claim 41, the recitation “…select a processing mode for the echo signal based on the at least one feature parameter, detect the noise signal in the processing mode, and determine a detection threshold based on the noise signal…” in lines 5-7 is a run-on structure that makes it unclear whether “detect the noise signal in the processing mode” is part of the selection step or a separate step, and what “ in the processing mode” precisely requires. Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
All the dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale as the rejection of the parent claims solely based their dependency from the rejected parent claims.
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) 22, 40, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liwei et al. (WO2021/088646).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Liwei discloses a detection method applied to a LiDAR, the detection method comprising:
determining at least one feature parameter that represents a working condition of the LiDAR (a controller a controller monitors baseline/ noise state of the external input signal under varying ambient condition, para. [0013]-[0019]);
determining an echo signal collected by the LiDAR, wherein the echo signal comprises at least a noise signal (external input signal from photodetector includes both echo waveform data and the noise data (Fig. 3); Lidar embodiment detection echoes reflected by obstacles);
selecting a processing mode for the echo signal based on the at least one feature parameter, detecting the noise signal in the processing mode and determining a detection threshold based on the noise signal(Liwei generates the threshold directly from measured noise statistics of the input signal (dynamic mode). Different operating regimes(ambient light level, required false alarm, sampling rate) inherently how noise is characterized, and the threshold is computed); and
comparing the echo signal with the detection threshold and outputting a target signal reflected from a target object in the echo signal (comparator compares the external input/ echo signal with a generator detection threshold; Output goes to TDC to obtain time information of the target echo).
Regarding Claim 40, as best understood, Liwei discloses a system storage medium storing instructions add processor that exe the method of claim 22. A controller (103, Fig. 1) that performs the computational steps of claim 22 inherently comprises a processor executing stored instructions. The LIDAR embodiment further couples the controller to a photo detector that supplies the echo signal. This means the storage medium, and the process limitation exist. Liwei describes a controller that performs exactly this operation (see rejection of claim 22).
Regarding Claim 41, as best understood, Liwei discloses laser emitter configure to emit a laser signal (para. [0031]); laser receiver configured to receive unequivocal signal that comprises a noise signal; detection system commutatively connected to the receiver and configured to perform the method of claim 22 (explicit lighter embodiment of Liwei (Transmitter + photodetector (para. [0028]) + dynamic threshold timing circuit/ controller (para. [0032])).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu et al. (US 11,175,390) discloses embodiments of the disclosure provide a system for analyzing noise data for light detection and ranging (LiDAR). The system includes a communication interface configured to sequentially receive noise data of the LiDAR in time windows, at least one storage device configured to store instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations. Exemplary operations include determining an estimated noise value of a first time window using the noise data received in the first time window and determining an instant noise value of a second time window using the noise data received in the second time window. The second time window is immediately subsequent to the first time window. The operations also include determining an estimated noise value of the second time window by aggregating the estimated noise value of the first time window and the instant noise value of the second time window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights