DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1, 11-12, 16, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1-5 and 8-22 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-13, 16-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel (US 2020/0292709) in view of Hall (US 2017/0269197) and Christmas (US 2021/0072379).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 16, Eshel teaches method, system and tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions for light detection and ranging [0124; 0153], the method comprising: (a projector arranged for) illuminating a scene with a first light pattern and monitoring for first light return from the scene with an array of detection elements [0128; 0137; 0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231]; (a controller arranged for) obtaining first point cloud data from first parts of the scene where the light return exceeds a first threshold value [0165; 0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0331]; determining a second light pattern …[0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0442]; and illuminating the scene with the second light pattern and monitoring for second light return from the scene with the array of detection elements [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0331; 0442]. Eshel does not explicitly teach - but Hall does teach reducing an intensity of the first light pattern in areas wherein first point cloud data was obtained [0056; 0067-71; 0075; 0080]. It would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Eshel to reduce intensity for a second light pattern so that pulse illumination intensity is adjusted to reduce the average illumination intensity for relatively close objects. Eshel does not explicitly teach – but Christmas does teach first/second light pattern formed by illuminating a first/second hologram displayed on a spatial light modulator [0009; 0049-51; 0061; 0084; 0096; 0101; 0125]; such that there is a corresponding increase in the intensity of the second light pattern in the areas of the scene where first data was not obtained because the corresponding light return signal did not exceed the first threshold value [0064; 0082; 0084; 0096; 0101; 0125; 0129]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Eshel to include illuminating a hologram to perform an avalanche recovery technique to recover to the bias voltage required for photon detection and prevent photodiode saturation.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Eshel also teaches obtaining 2nd point cloud data from 2nd parts of the scene where the 2nd light return exceeds a 2nd threshold [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0331].
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, Eshel also teaches determining an nth light pattern [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0442] by …and illuminating the scene with the nth light pattern and monitoring for nth light return from the scene with the array of detection elements [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0331; 0442]. Eshel does not explicitly teach - but Hall does teach reducing the intensity of the (nth -1) light pattern in the areas wherein (nth -1) point cloud data was obtained [0056; 0067-71; 0075; 0080]. It would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Eshel to reduce intensity for a second light pattern so that pulse illumination intensity is adjusted to reduce the average illumination intensity for relatively close objects.
Regarding Claim 4, Eshel also teaches wherein each point cloud obtained by the array of detection elements corresponds to a different depth volume in the scene, wherein a distance from the array of detection elements to the depth volume in the scene increases with each successive light pattern [0128; 0137; 0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231’ 0318; 0331]. Hall also teaches this limitation in [0056; 0067-71; 0075; 0080].
Regarding Claim 5, Eshel also teaches at least maintaining a total intensity of the light pattern with each successive light pattern [0128; 0137; 0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231’ 0318; 0331]. Hall also teaches this limitation in [0056; 0067-71; 0075; 0080].
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Eshel also teaches total intensity of the second light pattern is at least equal to a total intensity of the first light pattern [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0331]. Christmas additionally teaches these limitations in [0064; 0082; 0084; 0096; 0101; 0125; 0129].
Regarding Claims 8 and 13, Eshel does not explicitly teach – but Christmas does teach wherein the first light pattern comprises a regular array of light spots [0014; 0030; 0103], and wherein the second light pattern comprises a subset of the light spots of the regular array of light spots of the first light pattern [0014; 0030; 0103]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Eshel to include patterns of light spots (and subsets) so to scan or survey to obtain initial information (e.g. to provide a relatively coarse/low quality scan) that can be used as feedback for intelligent scanning.
Regarding Claim 21, Eshel also teaches obtain second point cloud data from second parts of the scene where second light return corresponding to second light pattern exceeds a second threshold value [ 0165; 0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0331; 0442]. Hall additionally teaches this limitation in [0056; 0067-71; 0075; 0080]. Christmas additionally teaches this limitation in [0064; 0082; 0084; 0096; 0101; 0125; 0129].
Regarding Claim 22, Eshel also teaches each point cloud obtained by the array of detection elements corresponds to a different depth volume in the scene, wherein a distance from the array of detection elements to the depth volume in the scene increases with each successive light pattern [0182-86; 0194; 0228; 0231; 0318; 0331; 0442]. Hall additionally teaches this limitation in [0042-48; 0061-68].
Claim(s) 9-10, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel (US 2020/0292709), Hall (US 2017/0269197) and Christmas (US 2021/0072379)., as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Eichenholz (US 2020/0076152).
Regarding Claims 9, 14 and 20, Eshel does not explicitly teach – but Eichenholz does teach wherein the light used to illuminate the scene is pulsed and controlling the projector, and the method further comprises changing a pulse repetition rate at least once such as reducing the pulse repetition rate with each successive light pattern or wherein the second pulse repetition rate is less than the first pulse repetition rate [0160]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Eshel to include decreasing pulse repetition to operate with a minimal amount of pulse-to-pulse timing jitter.
Regarding Claim 10, Eshel does not explicitly teach – but Eichenholz does teach gating a detection window of the array of detection elements and increasing a time delay between illumination and a start of each gate with each successive light pattern [0158-0161; 0181-82]. It would have been obvious to modify the system and method of Eshel to include decreasing pulse repetition to operate with a minimal amount of pulse-to-pulse timing jitter.
Regarding Claim 15, Eshel does not explicitly teach – but Eichenholz does teach wherein the array of detection elements has a detection window and the controller is arranged to increase a time between illumination and start of each detection window with each successive light pattern [0158-0161; 0181-82]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Eshel to include decreasing pulse repetition to operate with a minimal amount of pulse-to-pulse timing jitter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 8-22 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights