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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: “emitting unit” and “receiving unit” in claim 1 and “processing module” and “transceiver module” 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.
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.
Claim limitations “processing module” and “transceiver module” invoke 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. While said modules are mentioned in [0015] and [00136], neither of which appear to provide any specific algorithmic nor specific structural support. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
*Of note, as it is clear throughout the disclosure that it is a LiDAR implement, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection was considered, and determined unwarranted.
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.
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) 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., (WO 2022/213659 A1) referred to as YANG hereinafter.
*Of Note, the claim mappings will be evidenced by a FIT Database translation of YANG that is provided as an appendix to this Action.
Regarding Claim 1, BASEREF shows a method of laser detection, performed by a LiDAR, wherein the LiDAR comprises an emitting unit and a receiving unit (Page 2, para 1; Page 8, para 1), the method comprises:
generating, by the emitting unit, a plurality of emitting pulses within a measurement cycle (Page 10, para 4), wherein at least two emitting pulses in the plurality of emitting pulses have different emission control parameters, and the emission control parameters are used to adjust the plurality of emitting pulses (Page 14, para 2-4; Page 15, para 1-4);
emitting, by the emitting unit, a plurality of laser signals based on the plurality of emitting pulses (Page 8, para 2-4);
receiving, by the receiving unit, an echo signals corresponding to the plurality of laser signals (Page 8, para 5);
and processing, by the receiving unit, the echo signals to obtain a measurement result (Page 8, para 6).
Regarding claim 2, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the emission control parameter comprises at least one of:
emission power, emission pulse width, or duration of a rising edge or duration of a falling edge (Page 14, para 4-6; Page 15, para 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, the method further comprises:
determining the emission control parameters of the plurality of the emitting pulses respectively according to an emission orders corresponding to the plurality of the emitting pulses (Page 12, para 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 3 above, wherein the determining the emission control parameters of the plurality of the emitting pulses respectively according to an emission orders corresponding to the plurality of the emitting pulses comprises:
obtaining a correspondence between the emission order and the emission control parameter, wherein the correspondence is preset, or the correspondence is calculated according to at least one of:
a linear calculation formula relationship, a quadratic calculation formula relationship, or a Gaussian calculation formula relationship (Page 9, para 1-3 discloses preset correspondences and lookup-based selection.);
and determining the emission control parameters of the plurality of emitting pulses respectively according to the emission order and the corresponding relationship (Page 12, para 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the emitting unit comprises a plurality of laser groups, each of the laser groups comprises one or more lasers (Page 13, para 3-4; Page 13, para 5-6), the plurality of emitting pulses comprises a first emission pulse and a second emission pulse (Page 14, para 1), and the plurality of laser groups comprises one or more first laser groups and one or more second laser groups (Page 13, para 4-6), the emitting, by the emitting unit, the plurality of laser signals based on the plurality of emitting pulses comprises:
controlling the one or more first laser groups to emit a first laser signal based on the first emission pulse (Page 13, para 5-6);
and controlling the one or more second laser groups to emit a second laser signal based on the second emission pulse (Page 13, para 5-6), wherein the emission control parameter of the first emission pulse is different from the emission control parameter of the second emission pulse (Page 14, para 1-3), and the first laser group is different from the second laser group (Page 13, para 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, wherein the emitting unit comprises a plurality of laser groups, each of the laser groups comprises one or more lasers (Page 13, para 3-4), and the method further comprises:
determining emission control parameters for driving the emitting pulses of each laser group, according to a detection field of view corresponding to each laser group in the plurality of laser groups (Page 6, para 4-6; Page 13, para 5-6).
Regarding claim 9, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising:
determining, by the emitting unit, an internal measurement start signal as a start time of emitting the laser signal (Page 6, para 8-10);
and determining, by the receiving unit, the internal measurement start signal as a start time of receiving the laser signal (Page 6, para 8-10), wherein the internal measurement start signal is used to trigger the multiple emitting pulses (Page 8, para 2-3; Page 14, para 1-3).
Regarding Claim 10, BASEREF shows a laser detection apparatus (Page 8, para 1), comprising:
a processing module, configured to generate a plurality of emitting pulses within a measurement cycle (Page 8, para 2-3; Page 10, para 4), wherein at least two emitting pulses of the plurality of emitting pulses have different emission control parameters (Page 14, para 1-4; Page 15, para 1-3), and the emission control parameters are used to adjust the plurality of emitting pulses (Page 14, para 2-4);
and a transceiver module, configured to:
emit a plurality of laser signals based on the plurality of emitting pulses (Page 8, para 2-4) receive an echo signals corresponding to the plurality of laser signals (Page 8, para 5);
and processing the echo signals to obtain a measurement result (Page 8, para 6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG in view of Sun et al., (US 2024/0175993 A1) referred to as SUN hereinafter.
Regarding claim 7, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but SUN does specifically further comprise:
determining the emission control parameters of the plurality of emitting pulses, according to a current detection scene (Paragraphs [0088]-[0090] and [0127]-[0129]).
Both YANG and SUN are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANG in the spirit of SUN because it preserves anti-crosstalk performance at short range while improving long-range detection without violating eye-safety constraints (SUN: [0009], [0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 8, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but SUN does specifically further comprise:
determining the emission control parameters of the plurality of emitting pulses, according to detection results of other measurement cycles before the measurement cycle (Paragraphs [0088], [0099]-[0106], [0110]-[0118], [0125]-[0131]).
Both YANG and SUN are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YANG in the spirit of SUN because it preserves anti-crosstalk performance at short range while improving long-range detection without violating eye-safety constraints (SUN: [0009], [0077]-[0079]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 11, BASEREF implements the steps of the method according to claim 1 when executed by a processor.
However, YANG fails to specifically show a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program implements the steps of the method according to claim 1 when executed by a processor.
The examiner is taking OFFICIAL NOTICE that it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the method of claim 1 onto a standard computing landscape (i.e., processor, memory, etc) in order to realize the actual practice of the claimed invention.
One would be motivated to do so because this implementation is a well-known, conventional and routine means of carrying out inventions in not just LiDAR but all electrical arts at the stage of the effective filing date. It would be advantageous to do so to allow the programming to be manufactured and programmed at one location and distributed and installed anywhere else as needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights