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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11561281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventive concept of emitting first light signals and listening to light signals in a first firing cycle and emitting second light signals with respect to the emitting first light signals in a modulation scheme of power, period, frequency with selected second light signals of the first light signals being deactivated in a second firing cycle and listening during the second firing cycle, and identifying crosstalk/interference based on the two firing cycles has been taught by the current application and US patent 11561281.
In regards to claims 1, 11 and 12, 11561281 teaches a method, a light detection and ranging device and a non-transitory machine readable medium having instructions stored thereon, where the instructions, when executed by a processor, perform a method (claims 1, 19 and 20) comprising: emitting light signals from a first plurality of light emitters within a light detection and ranging (lidar) device during a first firing cycle of a firing sequence (claim 1, lines 2-4); listening, during the first firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals reflected from a surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 5-8); emitting one or more light signals according to a modulation scheme from one or more light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters during a second firing cycle of the firing sequence (claim 1, lines 9-11); emitting light signals from a second plurality of light emitters within the lidar device during the second firing cycle, wherein the second plurality of light emitters comprises the light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters that are not emitting light signals according to the modulation scheme during the second firing cycle, and wherein the light signals emitted from the second plurality of light emitters are not emitted according to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 12-17); listening, during the second firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals from the surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 18-21); and identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device, wherein identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device comprises determining, for each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, whether any light signals detected during the second firing cycle correspond to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 22-28).
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are either taught by or obvious variants of claims 2-18 in US 11561281.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11960029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventive concept of emitting first light signals and listening to light signals in a first firing cycle and emitting second light signals with respect to the emitting first light signals in a modulation scheme of power, period, frequency with selected second light signals of the first light signals being deactivated in a second firing cycle and listening during the second firing cycle, and identifying crosstalk/interference based on the two firing cycles has been taught by the current application and US patent 11960029.
In regards to claims 1, 11 and 12, 11960029 teaches a method, a light detection and ranging device and a non-transitory machine readable medium having instructions stored thereon, where the instructions, when executed by a processor, perform a method (claims 1, 19 and 20) comprising: emitting light signals from a first plurality of light emitters within a light detection and ranging (lidar) device during a first firing cycle of a firing sequence (claim 1, lines 2-5); listening, during the first firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals reflected from a surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 6-9); emitting one or more light signals according to a modulation scheme from one or more light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters during a second firing cycle of the firing sequence (claim 1, lines 10-14); emitting light signals from a second plurality of light emitters within the lidar device during the second firing cycle, wherein the second plurality of light emitters comprises the light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters that are not emitting light signals according to the modulation scheme during the second firing cycle, and wherein the light signals emitted from the second plurality of light emitters are not emitted according to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 15-21); listening, during the second firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals from the surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 22-25); and identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device, wherein identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device comprises determining, for each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, whether any light signals detected during the second firing cycle correspond to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 26-34).
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are either taught by or obvious variants of claims 2-18 in US 11960029.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12352891. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventive concept of emitting first light signals and listening to light signals in a first firing cycle and emitting second light signals with respect to the emitting first light signals in a modulation scheme of power, period, frequency with selected second light signals of the first light signals being deactivated in a second firing cycle and listening during the second firing cycle, and identifying crosstalk/interference based on the two firing cycles has been taught by the current application and US patent 12352891.
In regards to claims 1, 11 and 12, 12352891 teaches a method, a light detection and ranging device and a non-transitory machine readable medium having instructions stored thereon, where the instructions, when executed by a processor, perform a method (claims 1, 10 and 19) comprising: emitting light signals from a first plurality of light emitters within a light detection and ranging (lidar) device during a first firing cycle of a firing sequence (claim 1, lines 2-5); listening, during the first firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals reflected from a surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 6-9); emitting one or more light signals according to a modulation scheme from one or more light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters during a second firing cycle of the firing sequence (claim 1, lines 10-15); emitting light signals from a second plurality of light emitters within the lidar device during the second firing cycle, wherein the second plurality of light emitters comprises the light emitters within the first plurality of light emitters that are not emitting light signals according to the modulation scheme during the second firing cycle, and wherein the light signals emitted from the second plurality of light emitters are not emitted according to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 16-22); listening, during the second firing cycle by each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, for light signals from the surrounding environment (claim 1, lines 23-26); and identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device, wherein identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device comprises determining, for each light detector of the lidar device that is associated with the first plurality of light emitters, whether any light signals detected during the second firing cycle correspond to the modulation scheme (claim 1, lines 27-35).
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are either taught by or obvious variants of claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 in US 12352891.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pacala (US 20220035011) teaches a method (fig. 10, 11 and 12) comprising: deactivating one or more light emitters (316) (fig. 3) within a light detection and ranging (lidar) device (abstract, fig. 3) during a firing cycle (paragraph 103, ranging cycle, paragraph 33, 40, 44 and 60-64); and identifying whether interference (cross-talk, paragraph 65-67) is influencing measurements made by the lidar device (abstract, fig. 1 and 3), wherein identifying whether interference is influencing measurements made by the lidar device (abstract, fig. 1 and 3) comprises determining, for each light detector (334) of the lidar device (abstract, fig. 1 and 3) that is associated with the one or more light emitters (316) deactivated during the firing cycle (paragraphs 102-108, 40 and 60 64), whether a light signal was detected during the firing cycle (paragraphs 91-99, 102 108, 40 and 60-64, the system starts normal detection with activating light emitters 316 together or alternatively, then shuts them off/or to determine interference, cross-talk, then modifies the firing cycle to compensate for interference from external LIDAR), but does not specifically teach the details of claims 1, 19 and 20.
Schmidt (US 20200200873) teaches determining interference between illumination sources and altering the function of the LIDAR to adjust for the interference (abstract, paragraph 37, 58-63), but does not specifically teach the details of claims 1, 19 and 20.
Shu et al. (US 20180259645) teaches changing the outputs of the light emitters to reduce interference between a fleet of LIDAR systems (paragraph 56, 162-169 and 193-197), but does not specifically teach the details of claims 1, 19 and 20.
Allen et al. (US 20210103055) teaches applying random temporal dithering to a light source sequence to reduce interference from a second light source in a LIDAR system (paragraphs 46-51), but does not specifically teach the claimed steps as set forth above in claims 1, 19 and 20.
Helsloot et al. (US 20210033711) teaches activating and deactivating light sources in an array in order to determine optical cross-talk within a non-target group of pixels in a pixel array (abstract), but does not specifically teach the claimed steps as set forth above in claims 1, 19 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights