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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 14 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “instructions, that when” should perhaps read--instructions that, when--.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein to activate the first light detector further comprises to provide” should perhaps read --wherein activating the first light detector further comprises providing--.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein to activate the second light detector further comprises to provide” should perhaps read --wherein activating the second light detector further comprises providing--.
Regarding claim 14, “further comprising” should perhaps read --wherein the LIDAR system further comprises--.
Claims 2-7 and 21-23 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 5 and 12 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.
Claims 5 and 12 each recite that the first light detector is configured to operate in a Geiger mode “or” in a linear mode “and” be inoperable at the third bias voltage. It is unclear whether the inoperability at the third bias voltage limitation applies to both the Geiger mode and linear mode alternatives, or only to the linear mode alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 8-9, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema (US 20200182968 A1) in view of Henderson (US 20200158838 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gaalema discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 19, receiver 140 and detector chip 500 within lidar system 100; ¶¶ 127, 145-148) comprising:
a single light emitter configured to emit a first light pulse at a first time and then a second light pulse at a second time (¶¶ 54, 56, 164, first and second pulses emitted by light source 110, with the second pulse emitted an interval τ after the first);
a first light detector having a first predetermined field of view, the first predetermined field of view covering a first range of distance from the single light emitter (Fig. 19, detector 340-1a; ¶¶ 145 and 146, detector 340-1a is physically positioned along the return spot movement direction and receives returns from close targets);
a second light detector having a second predetermined field of view different from the first predetermined field of view, the second predetermined field of view covering a second range of distance different from the first range of distance from the single light emitter (Fig. 19, detector 340 2; ¶¶ 145 and 146, detector 340-2 is physically positioned to receive returns from targets beyond the near range);
a processor (controller 150; ¶ 126, controller 150); and
a memory storing computer-executable instructions, that when executed by the processor (Fig. 31, memory 3120 and processor 3110 as the implementation of controller 150; ¶¶ 165, 167, 169, and 174), cause the processor to:
cause the single light emitter to emit the first light pulse at the first time (light source 110 controlled by controller 150; ¶¶ 56 and 164, each trigger causes emission of an optical pulse and the first signal is a first emitted pulse); […];
cause the single light emitter to emit the second light pulse at the second time before return light from the first light pulse is detected, such that the first light pulse and the second light pulse are simultaneously traversing an environment for a period of time (Fig. 11, pulses 400C and 400D; ¶ 102, return pulse 410C from pulse 400C is received after pulse 400D is emitted; ¶ 127, received portions may be detected after the second signal is emitted); and
determine, based on return light being detected by one of the first light detector and the second light detector, whether the return light is associated with the first light pulse or the second light pulse (Fig. 19, detectors 340-1a and 340-2 and controller 150; ¶¶ 147-148, signals from the near and far detectors are compared to determine association with pulse 400C or pulse 400D; ¶¶ 129-132, controller 150 determines association with the first or second emitted signal).
Gaalema does not disclose: “activate the first light detector during a first time-of-flight window, the first time-of-flight window corresponding to a time period during which return light corresponding to a given emitted light pulse would be within the first predetermined field of view; activate the second light detector during a second time-of-flight window, the second time-of-flight window corresponding to a time period during which return light corresponding to the given emitted light pulse would be within the second predetermined field of view.” However, Henderson teaches the limitations. Specifically, Henderson teaches activating and deactivating detectors during windows having variable delays from emitter firing (¶ 65); relates those delays to return distance (¶ 77); and applies a first window to a first detector and a second window to a second detector during the same laser cycle (Fig. 2B; ¶ 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema with the teachings of Henderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to activate the near and far detectors during respective time of flight windows corresponding to their assigned distance ranges, thereby yielding a system with range selective return detection and reduced acquisition of irrelevant ambient light (Henderson, ¶¶ 65, 76-77, and 79).
Regarding claim 2, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein to activate the first light detector further comprises to provide a first bias voltage to the first light detector, and wherein to activate the second light detector further comprises to provide a second bias voltage to the second light detector (Henderson, Fig. 2B and ¶ 79, apply the first strobe window to the first detector and the second strobe window to the second detector; ¶ 6, SPAD is “biased beyond its breakdown region” in response to a strobe signal; ¶ 69, “biasing the SPADs to be activated and deactivated” during respective strobe windows).
Regarding claim 21, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the first time-of-flight window and the second time-of-flight window are non-overlapping in time during detection of the given emitted light pulse (Henderson, ¶ 9 teaches activating the first detector subset “at a first time delay during the emitter cycle while the second subset is inactive”; ¶ 10 teaches activating the second detector subset “at a second time delay during the emitter cycle while leaving the first subset of the detector pixels inactive”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gaalema in view of Henderson with the additional teachings of Henderson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid simultaneous activation of detector subsets by using nonoverlapping detection windows, thereby yielding a system with reduced receiver power consumption and lower peak detector recharge current (Henderson, ¶¶ 9-10 and 73).
Claim 8 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 1.
Claim 9 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 2.
Claim 24 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 21. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 21.
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Ferreira (US 20200284883 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, however does not teach: wherein the first bias voltage and second bias voltage are the same voltage level. However, Ferreira teaches the limitation in Fig. 49, sensor pixels 3802 include APD1 through APDN and corresponding pixel selection circuits having the same structure and components, where ¶ 953, voltage generator generates reverse bias voltage URB and “apply the same to each photo diode.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema, as modified by Henderson, with the teachings of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish the same reverse bias level across the first and second detectors while retaining detector specific selection through corresponding bias adjustments, thereby yielding a system with a common bias architecture, simpler detector selection circuitry, and shorter, less noise prone signal paths (Ferreira, ¶¶ 946-947, 953-955).
Regarding claim 4, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, however does not teach: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to: provide a third bias voltage to the first light detector during the second time-of-flight window, the third bias voltage being lower than the first bias voltage. However, Ferreira teaches the omitted detector bias condition: ¶ 955, expressly states “reverse bias voltage URB may be temporarily reduced by at least some volts”; ¶ 958, teaches providing the suppression voltage during the time the associated pixel is not selected; ¶ 964, further teaches temporarily reducing the reverse bias at specific periods according to the scan process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema, as modified by Henderson, with the teachings of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to suppress amplification by the nonselected first detector during the second time-of-flight window by temporarily lowering its reverse bias voltage, thereby yielding a system with materially reduced noise contribution from the nonselected detector using a simple low voltage bias circuit (Ferreira, ¶¶ 946-947, 955, 958, and 964-965).
Regarding claim 5, Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Ferreira teaches the LIDAR system of claim 4, and further teaches: wherein the first light detector is an Avalanche Photodiode (APD) (Gaalema, ¶ 145), and wherein the first light detector is configured to operate in a Geiger Mode at the first bias voltage (Henderson, ¶¶ 6, 65, 69, 79) or in a linear mode at a first operating time and be inoperable at the third bias voltage at a second operating time (Ferreira, ¶¶ 955, 958, 964-965, temporarily reducing the reverse bias of a nonselected APD into a region in which avalanche amplification is suppressed).
Claim 10 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 3.
Claim 11 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 4.
Claim 12 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Zhang (“Gaussian pulse gated InGaAs/InP avalanche photodiode for single photon detection,” published 2013)1.
Regarding claim 6, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to send an instruction to activate the first light detector (Henderson, ¶¶ 62-63, 65, 79) […]. Gaalema in view of Henderson does not teach: “based on a Gaussian function.” However, Zhang remedies this deficiency by expressly “gat[ing the photodiode with a Gaussian pulse” (p. 606, Abstract and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema in view of Henderson with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve detector signal quality without sacrificing detection performance (Zhang, p. 606, Abstract).
Claim 13 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Westell (US 5028998 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: comprising a third light detector (Gaalema, Fig. 19, detector 340-1b; ¶ 145), […], and wherein the first to third light detectors are physically oriented to have different individual fields of view (Gaalema, Fig. 19; ¶¶ 145-146, detectors 340-1a, 340-1b, and 340-2 are arranged respectively to receive close-, intermediate-, and far-range returns). Gaalema in view of Henderson does not teach: “wherein the first light detector, second light detector, and third light detector are separated by a spacing that is logarithmic.” However, Westell teaches the limitation in Col. 5:20-26 and Fig. 10B, multiple detector elements arranged according to a continuous function, where the detector positions form a geometric progression uniformly distributed on a logarithmic scale (Col. 18:30-45; see also Col. 14:13-33; Col. 23:46-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema in view of Henderson with the teachings of Westell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently distribute the detectors across different individual fields of view regions, thereby yielding a system with improved dynamic range coverage and reduced hardware complexity (Westell, Col. 3:5-16; Col. 4:12-24; Col. 9:25-46; Col. 21:1-20).
Claim 14 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 7.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Pei (US 20170307758 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, however does not teach: wherein individual analog to digital converters (ADCs) are provided for each of the first light detector and the second light detector. Pei teaches the limitation in Fig. 1, first photodetector 160a and second photodetector 160b, where ¶ 50 states that the “electrical signals generated by the first photodetector and the second photodetector may be input into separate ADCs.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema, as modified by Henderson, with the teachings of Pei, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to digitized detector channels independently thereby removing any dependency on shared converter timing constraints (Pei, ¶ 50).
Claim 25 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 22. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 22.
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalema in view of Henderson further in view of Russell (US 20190107606 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Gaalema in view of Henderson teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein determining whether the return light is associated with the first light pulse or the second light pulse comprises determining based on a correspondence between activation timing of the first light detector and the second light detector (Gaalema, Fig. 19 and ¶¶ 131, 147, and 148 comparing the near detector and far detector signals to determine whether a received optical signal is associated with pulse 400 C or pulse 400 D; Henderson, Fig. 2B and ¶¶ 62-63, 65, 77, and 79, applies a first strobe window to a first detector at a first delay and a second strobe window to a second detector at a second delay) and […]. Gaalema in view of Henderson does not teach: “expected return time of the first light pulse and the second light pulse.” However, Russell teaches the limitation, where ¶ 94 teaches that successive outgoing and received pulses temporally overlap, creating pulse ambiguity, and associates returns 400-A1 and 400-A2 with emitted pulses 300-A1 and 300-A2 using prior time of flight information, ¶ 95 teaches that “each emitted pulse ... may be associated with a respective time window” where return 400-A1 occurring in window 700-A1 is associated with emitted pulse 300-A1, while return 400-A2 occurring in window 700-A2 is associated with emitted pulse 300-A2, ¶ 96 teaches that each window has an expected center time based on previously measured time of flight and covers the interval during which the corresponding return is expected, and ¶ 97 identifies the detected return with the emitted pulse corresponding to the window containing that return. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gaalema, as modified by Henderson, with the teachings of Russell, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to correlate detector activation timing with pulse specific windows centered on expected return times and associate each detected return with the corresponding emitted pulse, thereby yielding a system that resolves pulse and distance ambiguity arising from temporally overlapping pulses, resulting in the rejection of noise and spurious reflections and providing more accurate distance measurement information (Russell, ¶¶ 94-97).
Claim 26 is a method corresponding to the system of claim 23. Accordingly, claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds and in view of the same prior art as claim 23.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Xue (US 20180348347A1) which discloses a single pulsed laser, two photodetectors with finite fields of view, and processor controlled time of flight measurement with return pulse disambiguation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Yixin Zhang, Xuping Zhang, and Shun Wang, "Gaussian pulse gated InGaAs/InP avalanche photodiode for single photon detection," Opt. Lett. 38, 606-608 (2013).
Prosecution Insights