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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 14 and 21 were amended.
In response to amendments filed on 29 October 2025, prior objections to the drawings are withdrawn due to addition of Figs. 2E and 2F and amendments to the specification paragraphs [0019] and [0051]. No new matter has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 9, 17, 22 and 28 under 35 USC §112(a) for lack of enablement, applicant discusses on page 11, under ‘Remarks/Arguments’ that paragraphs [0051] and [0057] of the pending application enable the changing of either the position or orientation of movable mirror (256), specifically noting that [0051] indicates the mirror “can move position, that is it can oscillate”, and [0057] indicates a change of orientation due to angular motion. Examiner acknowledges that this gives support that change in orientation is enabled, in that the orientation of a 1-D or 2-D movable mirror, such as a MEMS, is modified by rotation on 1- or 2-axes. However, the enablement concerns which were raised was that there is no support for an optical component changing both an orientation, such as by adjusting an angular facing once or continually, which is oscillatory in nature, and a position in space. Orientation and position in space will not both be adjusted by the same oscillatory motion, and therefore there continues to be a lack of enablement of the “and position” portion of the limitations including “…change in the position and/or orientation of the optical component”.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 (and similarly claims 17, 22 and 28) under USC §103, applicant notes (pg. 11, last paragraph-pg. 12, 3rd paragraph) that Smits (US 20160041266 A1) does not teach a system where the transmission and reception paths share optics, and while Zhang (US 1167 5055 B2) does teach a shared optical path, does not suggest or show the limitation where a scanner is operable to change a position and/or orientation between emission and reception. Zhang discusses that, while shown in some figures to have only partially overlapping optical paths, that the transmitted and returned light may in fact have substantially overlapping paths and shared optical components (Col. 9, lines 21-32). Zhang further discusses that individual returned light signals correspond to a beam steering angle (as directed by MEMS beam steering system (724)), and the beam steering angle is used by the system to know which subset of detector segments will/should receive a returned light signal. Knowledge of galvo (722) position and MEMS steering system (724) positions allow for actions like power saving and increased signal to noise can be accomplished (Col. 12, lines 3-51). To one of ordinary skill in the art, this would allow the MEMS steering system and galvo motors to move between emission and detection, as their angular orientations are read by the system, to steer the return light to known detector segments after emitting to known angular regions of the FOV.
Secondly, applicant argues (pg. 12, paragraph 4) that it is not obvious to combine Zhang and Smits, as Smits teaches away from the current application as it either does not suggest co-location of the emitter and receiver, or because it suggests co-location where the distance can be up to 1 meter. In the discussion of Fig. 11 ([0177]), Smits notes that the distance between the receiver, located at B, and a secondary receiver located at B’ may exist up to 1 meter apart, however Smits also notes that the emitter may be essentially co-located with either B or B’. Inclusion of the secondary receiver will not change that A and B (or B’) are co-located. Additionally, Smits includes other embodiments that either include separate transmitters and receivers which are essentially co-located (such as Fig. 12, [0180]) or embodiments where the separate transmitters and receivers have been replaced with a transceiver (Fig. 13, 14B, [0184], [0191]) which additionally may include a co-located scanning mirror (Fig. 14B (1414)). Therefore, Smits does not teach away from the current application, and the additional embodiments support a combination of the system of Smits with the notably shared scanning mirror of Zhang, which may rotate between emission and reception of an echo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for either changing the position or orientation of the optical component between transmission and reception of signals, does not reasonably provide enablement for concurrently changing both the position (location in space) or orientation of the optical component between transmission and reception of signals. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claim limitations regarding “…the scanner is operable to change a position and/or orientation of the optical component” is not enabled. While the phrase ‘and/or’ is defined in [0033] and [0036], there is insufficient description where the scanning mirror is mentioned to support that the mirror can change both orientation and position. The specification does describe how a scanning 1- or 2-D MEMs mirror scans by adjusting the angle(s) it is oriented in [0048]-[0057] as an oscillating mirror, but it is silent on how, or in what fashion, the scanning mirror could adjust position in addition to orientation. Additionally, the specification describes some embodiments of a LiDAR scanner may include the angular walk-off due to the scanner’s change in angular position of the optical component in the design parameters, but does not mention how a change in the optical components’ position/location would also be a design parameter. ([0077])
The state of the prior art existing at the filing date of the application, as shown in several referenced prior art references in this office action, supports that oscillating mirrors are prolific within LiDAR systems and technology, which allow for scanning of environments in 1- and 2- dimensions. It is understood to a person having ordinary skill in the art how to implement an oscillating mirror for use of scanning in 1- or 2-D environments, but as there is no guidance within the specification to the implementation of such a mirror. While one skilled in the art could anticipate an effect of a mirror which also changes position in addition to orientation would have on a LiDAR system’s scanning capabilities, undue experimentation would be required to take into consideration how a mirror that not only changes angle(s) of orientation but also its location in space would affect the design parameters as well as the time-of-flight calculations necessary for the functioning of a LiDAR system to practice the full scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15-20 and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1), and in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Smits teaches a LiDAR-based sensor system, comprising:
an optical transmitter ([0050], [0084]; Fig. 3 (312));
a scanner ([0085]; Fig. 3 (310));
a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092]; Fig. 3 (326)); and
a controller ([0070]; Fig. 3 (308)),
wherein the optical transmitter is operable to transmit a ranging signal via an optical component of the scanner ([0085]; Fig. 3 (314)),
wherein the scanner is operable to change a position and/or orientation of the optical component after the ranging signal is transmitted via the optical component and before a return signal corresponding to the ranging signal is received ([0090]-[0091]),
wherein the segmented optical detector is operable to receive the return signal corresponding to the ranging signal after the change in the position and/or orientation of the optical component ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected),
and the controller is operable to detect a location of a return spot of the return signal based on outputs of one or more of the discrete sense nodes ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328)), and
wherein the controller is operable to determine a distance to an object that reflected the return signal based, at least in part, on (1) the location of the return spot and (2) a residual time of flight of the return signal ([0100]).
Smits does not explicitly teach that the optical component is shared between both a transmitted and return signal.
Zhang teaches receiving of a return signal via an optical component (Col. 9, lines 21-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to use a shared optical component to steer both a transmitted and return signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), which would incorporate the shared optical component of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component.
Regarding claim 2, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the ranging signal includes a plurality of pulses in sequence ([0111]).
Regarding claim 3, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ranging signal may be a pulsed signal ([0032]).
Smits does not explicitly teach the pulse repetition frequency is within a certain range.
Zhang teaches a pulse repetition frequency of the optical transmitter is between 1 MHz and 2 MHz (Col. 7, lines 45-60).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to select a pulse repetition frequency in the range of 1 Mhz to 2 Mhz with a reasonable expectation of success. As Zhang explains, the density of a LiDAR point cloud increases with a repetition rate (Col. 7, lines 33-35), and the described fast pixel circuit in Smits ([0081]) would incorporate the pulse repetition frequency of Zhang with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the scanner is operable to scan a 40 degree by 40 degree field of view ([0072]; Fig. 3) at a range of 1.5 km in 1 second or less ([0220]) using gapless scan lines ([0228]-[0229]; where ‘gapless’ is interpreted as scan lines having overlapping coverage and therefore is included in a scanning pattern which includes 100 lines per elevation degree.).
Regarding claim 5, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 4, wherein
the scanner is configured to scan the gapless scan lines ([0228]-[0229]; where ‘gapless’ is interpreted as scan lines having overlapping coverage and therefore is included in a scanning pattern which includes 100 lines per elevation degree.) bi-directionally ([0139]; Fig. 6A, where a target is scanned in two dimensions).
Regarding claim 6, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the scanner comprises a resonant and servomotor- controlled 2D scan mirror ([0088]; Fig. 3, rotating mirror (314), may be a MEM mirror which scans in at least two-dimensions) or a rotating polygon with angled facets.
Regarding claim 7, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the optical component of the scanner comprises a movable mirror ([0090]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 8, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the optical transmitter is operable to transmit the ranging signal, via the optical component of the scanner, to a first scan point of a plurality of scan points ([0145]; Fig. 6A, where optical system (614) is rotated at a first set of transmitter angles and reflects a first outgoing beam (660) towards object C.).
Regarding claim 9, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 8, wherein
the scanner is operable to change a position and/or orientation of the optical component after the ranging signal is transmitted via the optical component and before the return signal corresponding to the ranging signal is received by:
moving the optical component of the scanner to an orientation associated with a second scan point ([0148]; Fig. 6B second pulsed beam at t1 (662)) of the plurality of scan points during a ranging period of the first scan point ([0145]-[0150]), the ranging period including at least a time period between the optical transmitter transmitting the ranging signal and the optical detector the return signal ([0145]-[0150]; where the ranging period occurs between t0 and t2 for the first transmission).
Regarding claim 15, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
the optical transmitter, the scanner, and the segmented optical detector are components of a first LIDAR channel operable to scan a field of view of the LIDAR-based sensor system in a first direction ([0184]-[0185]; Fig. 13 first channel transceiver (1310)), and wherein the LIDAR-based sensor system further comprises a second LIDAR channel operable to scan the field of view ([0186]; Fig. 13 second channel transceiver (1320)) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction ([0185]-[0186]).
Regarding claim 16, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 15, wherein
the second LIDAR channel includes a second optical transmitter ([0185] – [0186]; Fig. 13, with a first elevation scanning transceiver (1310) and second azimuth scanning transceiver (1320)), a second scanner ([0185]; Fig. 13 (1324)), and a second segmented optical detector including a second plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the second segmented optical detector ([0187]; second detector (1326) which may be a 1D array).
Regarding claim 17, Smits teaches a LiDAR-based sensing method, comprising
(a) by an optical transmitter ([0050],[0084]; Fig. 3 (312)) and via an optical component of a scanner of a LIDAR device ([0085]; Fig. 3 (314)), transmitting a ranging signal toward a first scan point of a plurality of scan points ([0145]; Fig. 6A, where optical system (614) is rotated at a first set of transmitter angles and reflects a first outgoing beam (660) towards object C.)
(b) changing a position and/or orientation of the optical component of the scanner after the ranging signal is transmitted via the optical component ([0090]-[0091])
(c) after changing the position and/or orientation of the optical component of the scanner, receiving a return signal reflected from the first scan point, ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected), and by a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092]; Fig. 3 (326))
(d) detecting, by a controller, a location of a return spot of the return signal based on outputs of one or more of the discrete sense nodes ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328))
and (e) determining, by the controller, a distance to the first scan point based, at least in part, on (1) the location of the return spot and (2) a residual time of flight of the return signal ([0100]).
Smits does not explicitly teach that the optical component is shared between both a transmitted and return signal.
Zhang teaches receiving of a return signal via the optical component of the scanner (Col. 9, lines 21-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to use a shared optical component to steer both a transmitted and return signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), which would incorporate the shared optical component of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component.
Regarding claim 18, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 17, wherein
the ranging signal includes a plurality of pulses in sequence ([0111]).
Regarding claim 19, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 17, wherein
scanning a 40 degree by 40 degree field of view ([0072]; Fig. 3) at a range of 1.5 km in 1 second or less ([0220]) using gapless scan lines by repeating steps (a) - (e) a plurality of times.
Regarding claim 20, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 19, wherein
scanning the field of view using gapless scan lines comprises scanning the gapless scan lines bi-directionally ([0084],[0139]; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 22, Smits teaches a method comprising
by a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092]; Fig. 3 (326)), generating a plurality of electrical signals during a ranging period of a scan point ([0116]) , wherein each electrical signal in the plurality of electrical signals corresponds to a respective discrete sense node in the plurality of discrete sense nodes and represents an optical signal sensed by the respective discrete sense node ([0104]-[0106]), wherein the optical signal is received by the respective discrete sense node from an optical component, and wherein the position and/or orientation of the optical component is changed after the optical signal is transmitted and before the optical signal is received ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected),
and by a controller ([0070]; Fig. 3 (308))
receiving the plurality of electrical signals generated by the segmented optical detector ([0133]; Fig 4C (444))
determining, based on the plurality of sampled values, whether the segmented optical detector has received a return spot ([0120]; Fig. 4A (406))
and when the controller determines that the segmented optical detector has received the return spot, determining which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes of the segmented optical detector received the return spot ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328))
determining a residual time of flight of a return signal corresponding to the return spot ([0121]; Fig. 4A (408))
and determining a distance to a scan point from which the return signal was reflected based, at least in part, on (1) which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes received the return spot and (2) the residual time of flight of the return signal. ([0100], [0121]).
Smits does not explicitly teach a shared optical component between transmitting and receiving signals, or teach sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period.
Zhang teaches both receiving of a return signal via the optical component of the scanner (Col. 9, lines 21-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals) and sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period, thereby generating a plurality of sampled values (Col. 13, lines 6-29; Fig. 10 (Step 1040) monitoring detector segments for return pulses).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to utilize a shared optical component for receiving and transmitting signals, as well as actively sample the signals of an optical detector during the monitoring, with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes that a passive trigger may be used to begin scans or analysis, and this passive trigger may be based on the detection of photons during scanning ([019]-[0198]), which could incorporate the monitoring of detector segments in Zhang with predictable results. Additionally, Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), which would incorporate the shared optical component of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component.
Regarding claim 23, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising
storing, by the controller, additional data indicating at least one of: a start time of the ranging period, a plurality of times when the plurality of electrical signals are sampled, and/or durations of one or more sampling periods. ([0121], [0133]; Fig. 4C (442) generates outgoing timestamp, (448) compares outgoing and incoming timestamps)
Regarding claim 24, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
determining whether the segmented optical detector has received the return spot includes comparing the plurality of sampled values to a detection threshold value ([0040]; where the preferred embodiment is a SPAD pixel operating to detect at least single photons.).
Regarding claim 25, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
determining whether the segmented optical detector has received the return spot includes performing pattern analysis on the plurality of sampled values to determine whether the plurality of sampled values conform to any of a plurality of stored patterns ([0168]-[0171]; Fig. 10A-10C, where target size can be determined by detected photon intensity profiles).
Regarding claim 26, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
the determining which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes of the segmented optical detector received the return spot is based on an identification of a particular discrete sense node of the plurality of discrete sense nodes producing a highest sampled value during the ranging period as the discrete sense node that received the return spot ([0106]).
Regarding claim 27, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 22, wherein
the distance to the scan point is determined using a triangulation-augmented time-of-flight calculation ([0100]).
Regarding claim 28, Smits teaches a LIDAR-based receiver system, comprising
a segmented optical detector including a plurality of discrete sense nodes distributed along a length of the segmented optical detector ([0092]; Fig. 3 (326)), the segmented optical detector being configured to generate a plurality of electrical signals during a ranging period of a scan point ([0116]) , wherein each electrical signal in the plurality of electrical signals corresponds to a respective discrete sense node in the plurality of discrete sense nodes and represents an optical signal sensed by the respective discrete sense node ([0104]-[0106]), wherein the optical signal is received by the respective discrete sense node from an optical component, and wherein the position and/or orientation of the optical component is changed after the optical signal is transmitted and before the optical signal is received from the optical component ([0144] – [0150]; where at
t
0
the transmitter emits the first beam, at
t
1
the optical system rotates the optical component, and at
t
2
the first beam is detected),
and by a controller ([0070]; Fig. 3 (308)) configured to
receive the plurality of electrical signals generated by the segmented optical detector ([0133]; Fig 4C (444))
determine, based on the plurality of sampled values, whether the segmented optical detector has received a return spot ([0120]; Fig. 4A (406))
and when the controller determines that the segmented optical detector has received the return spot, determine which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes of the segmented optical detector received the return spot ([0098]; Fig. 3 'lit up pixel' (328))
determine a residual time of flight of a return signal corresponding to the return spot ([0121]; Fig. 4A (408))
and determine a distance to a scan point from which the return signal was reflected based, at least in part, on (1) which of the plurality of discrete sense nodes received the return spot and (2) the residual time of flight of the return signal ([0100], [0121]).
Smits does not explicitly teach a shared optical component between transmitting and receiving signals, or teach sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period.
Zhang teaches both receiving of a return signal via the optical component of the scanner (Col. 9, lines 21-32; Fig. 4, where the signal steering system's (404) optical redirection elements may be the same components (ex. shared) between transmitted and returned signals) and sampling the plurality of electrical signals of the segmented optical detector at multiple times during the ranging period, thereby generating a plurality of sampled values (Col. 13, lines 6-29; Fig. 10 (Step 1040) monitoring detector segments for return pulses).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to utilize a shared optical component for receiving and transmitting signals, as well as actively sample the signals of an optical detector during the monitoring, with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes that a passive trigger may be used to begin scans or analysis, and this passive trigger may be based on the detection of photons during scanning ([019]-[0198]), which could incorporate the monitoring of detector segments in Zhang with predictable results. Additionally, Smits notes that in some embodiments, detectors and receivers can be situated to be approximately co-located ([0177]), which would incorporate the shared optical component of Zhang with predictable results of directing both transmitted and received signals with a shared optical component.
Regarding claim 29, Smits as modified above teaches the method of claim 28, wherein
the distance to the scan point is determined using a triangulation-augmented time-of flight calculation ([0100]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Hughes (20210325663 A1).
Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the scanner has an angular scanning speed ([0090]) and a range of the sensor system is at least 1.5 km ([0220]).
Smits does not explicitly teach an angular scanning speed of the scanner is between 10 and 12 radians / second.
Hughes teaches an angular scanning speed of a scanner which is between 10 and 12 radians / second ([0088]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Hughes to utilize a slow scanning speed of approximated 10 rad/s with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may scan at a resonant frequency of a MEMS device within the system, or may scan anywhere between a few Hertz and greater than 100 kHz, depending on the MEMS device ([0090]). A scan speed of specifically 10-12 rad/s equates to approximately 1.6-1.9 Hz, which could be utilized within the system of Smits by the teachings of Hughes to yield the predictable results of a known, specific, scanning speed for scanning optics within a LiDAR system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2), further in view of Hughes (20210325663 A1). and further still in view of Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood, “SiGe Based Visible-NIR Photodetector Technology for Optoelectronic Applications”, 25 February 2015).
Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 10, wherein a detector has a plurality of discrete sense nodes ([0092]).
Smits does not explicitly teach the number of nodes n in a row of a detector, nor the length of the detector on n nodes.
Zhang teaches the plurality of discrete sense nodes includes 8-12 discrete sense nodes (Col. 11 lines 11-64; Detector arrays may be 1xN or NxM; Fig. 8A shows a 9x9 grid, and detector may be an SiGe detector).
Sood teaches the state of the art for SiGe detectors, and acts as a reference of their possible sizes. For a detector to be between 20-25
μ
m
with 8-12 discrete sense nodes, each node must be between
~
2
-
3
μ
m
. Sood indicates a known width of SiGe is approximately 2.6 microns, which would fall in the range indicated in the instant application (Section 4.2, Fig. 11b).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Sood to select specifically sized detector nodes with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may use a 1D (1xN) array of pixels, and that the detector pixels may be any photon-sensitive technology ([0033]), which could incorporate the specific detectors of Zhang with predictable results of a system utilizing a detector array of SiGe detectors where the array size is chosen based on specific size/physical dimensions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Raring et al. (hereinafter Raring, US 10222474 B1).
Smits teaches the system of claim 1.
Smits does not explicitly teach the type of laser or wavelength range.
Zhang teaches a LiDAR system where an optical transmitter includes a fiber laser (Col. 6, lines 20-25).
Raring teaches a LIDAR system where the optical transmitter utilizes a wavelength of between 1300 - 1310 nm (Col. 11 lines 36-39).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Raring to utilize a fiber laser with a wavelength of between 1300-1310 nm with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes specific use of transmitters within the near-infrared range, which includes the range of 1300-1310 nm, and therefore Smits could incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Raring with predictable results of use of a laser source in a LiDAR system, which is a fiber laser emitting in the 1300-1310 nm range.
Claims 13, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (20160041266 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2), and further in view of Schultz et al. (hereinafter Schultz, US 20210263158).
Regarding claim 13, Smits teaches the system of claim 1.
Smits does not explicitly teach the vehicle which the LiDAR based system is attached to.
Schultz teaches a LiDAR-based sensor system ([0049]; Fig. 2(22)) is a component of or is configured to communicate with a navigation system ([0049]; Fig. 2 GPS (24) and inertial navigation unit (26) within a geo-locating system (14)) of a helicopter, an airplane, an unmanned aerial vehicle ([0045]; Fig. 10 airplane houses platform (12)), or a watercraft.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Schultz to incorporate the LIDAR system into a vehicle such as an airplane with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the use of their systems within vehicle applications to avoid collisions ([0047]), and can be connected to GPS systems ([0068]; Fig. 2 (258)) and therefore could be used within an aircraft with predictable results of use of a LiDAR system on a variety of craft, such as an aircraft, while being in communication with a navigation system.
Regarding claim 14, Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 13.
Smits does not explicitly teach identification of objects (such as wires or utility lines).
Schultz teaches identification of objects, where the object is a guide wire or utility line ([0092]) , having a diameter of at least 4 inches ([0086]; wherein resolution of points may be between 1 cm and 4 cm, allowing for identification of any object larger than this), and wherein the controller is further configured to identify the object as a guide wire or utility line ([0094]).
Examiners note about the interpretation of ‘guide wire’: Upon review of the prior art and the instant applications specification (as defined in [0039] “guide wires (e.g., for radio towers or utility towers”), the examiner interprets ‘guide wire’ to be related to ‘guy wire’ or ‘stay’, terms for tensioned cables meant to give stability to freestanding structures.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Schultz to use the LIDAR system of a vehicle for identification of wires and cables with a reasonable expectation of success. The point density within the point grid as taught in Schultz indicates a resolution size between 1 cm and 4 cm ([0086]) at a flying altitude of 2000’ ([0086]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would know a smaller resolution length would allow for identification of a larger object. Smits notes the resolution of their LIDAR system at ranges between 1000 and 5000 ft to be between 1/5 ft and 1 ft, respectively. Similar to the resolution of points taught by Schultz, this resolution range would be able to identify objects sized at least 4 inches in diameter, such as utility poles and other large diameter wires, with predictable results of object identification within a resolution range.
The method of claim 21 is similarly rejected to the system of claim 14.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits (US 20160041266 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang, US 11675055 B2) and further in view of Sood et al. (hereinafter Sood, “SiGe Based Visible-NIR Photodetector Technology for Optoelectronic Applications”, 25 February 2015).
Smits as modified above teaches the system of claim 28, wherein a detector has a plurality of discrete sense nodes ([0092]).
Smits does not explicitly teach the number of nodes n in a row of a detector, nor the length of the detector on n nodes.
Zhang teaches the plurality of discrete sense nodes includes 8-12 discrete sense nodes (Col. 11 lines 11-64; Detector arrays may be 1xN or NxM; Fig. 8A shows a 9x9 grid, and detector may be an SiGe detector).
Sood teaches the state of the art for SiGe detectors, and acts as a reference of their possible sizes. For a detector to be between 20-25
μ
m
with 8-12 discrete sense nodes, each node must be between
~
2
-
3
μ
m
. Sood indicates a known width of SiGe is approximately 2.6 microns, which would fall in the range indicated in the instant application (Section 4.2, Fig. 11b).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Smits to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and Sood to select specifically sized detector nodes with a reasonable expectation of success. Smits notes the system may use a 1D (1xN) array of pixels, and that the detector pixels may be any photon-sensitive technology ([0033]), which could incorporate the specific detectors of Zhang with predictable results of a system utilizing a detector array of SiGe detectors where the array size is chosen based on specific size/physical dimensions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"Experimental Investigation of Bending Fatigue Response of Grouted Stay Cables", Sharon L. Wood; and Karl H. Frank, JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2010 (Year: 2010) is used to show that stays on bridges can have diameters in the range of 4 inches (10.2 cm or 102 mm) (Fig. 3).
"System identification of a cable-stayed bridge using vibration responses measured by a wireless sensor network", Kim et al. Article in Smart Structures and Systems · May 2013 (Year: 2013) teaches other cable size ranges of stay wires on bridges (Table 1).
“RULES FOR Overhead Electric Line Construction”, State of California Public Utilities Commission (1998) teaches on the average, and minimum, sizes of guys, grounding or lightning protection wires, or conductor wires in various powerline applications.
Ray et al. (US 20090123158 A1) teaches a LIDAR system with a rotating mirror unit shared by a receiver and transmitter, where an offset angle between emission and reception is used to compensate for a change between a cone of illumination of the transmitting portion and a field-of-view of the receiving portion resulting from the rotation of the mirror unit.
Ren et al. (WO 2020164223 A1) teaches a LIDAR, or laser RADAR, system which includes a rotating reflection mechanism, a transceiver, and a mirror galvanometer where emission to and reception from the environment may occur with rotation of the rotating mechanism happening between the two events.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights