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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 09/08/2025 in which claims 1-30 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Currently claims 1-30 are pending for examination in this application.
Based on applicant’s amendments:
The previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
The previous specification objections are withdrawn.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn.
The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-3, 5-18, 25, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan et al. (US 20170242108 A1), hereinafter Dussan, in view of Shand (US 20190195990 A1), Droz et al. (US 9784835 B1), hereinafter Droz, and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 1, Dussan teaches:
A lidar system ([0035] “FIG. 1A illustrates an example embodiment of a ladar transmitter/receiver system 100.”) comprising:
a photodetector circuit, the photodetector circuit comprising an array of pixels for sensing incident light ([0037] “The light sensor 202 may comprise an array of multiple individually addressable light sensors (e.g., an n-element photodetector array).”); and
a control circuit, wherein the control circuit (1) processes a shot list ([0051] “FIG. 8 shows an example embodiment for control circuit 608. The control circuit 608 receives the shot list 800… selects a first of the range points/target pixels… maps the selected range point to a sensor/pixel (or a composite pixel/superpixel) of the detector array 600... cause the multiplexer to readout the mapped sensor/pixel (or composite pixel/superpixel) of the detector array 600… progresses to the next range point/target pixel on the shot list”),
the shot list comprising data that defines a plurality of laser pulse shots that target a plurality of range points in a field of view ([0051] “This shot list is an ordering listing of the pixels within a frame that are to be targeted as range points by the ladar transmitter.”) and
[…]
wherein the photodetector circuit selectively starts and stops collections from a plurality of pixels of the array in accordance with the determined detection intervals to control the photodetector circuit to sense the returns from the laser pulse shots ([0050] “if the transmitter is targeting pixel x,y in the scan area with a ladar pulse, the multiplexer 604 can generate a control signal 612 that causes a readout of pixel x,y from the detector array 600.”; [0052] “For example, by using the a priori knowledge from the shot list (which defines the sequence in which the pixels (and composite pixels) will be selected for readout), the system can avoid the need to provide full power to all of the amplifiers at the same time”.).
Dussan is not relied upon for:
(2) determines a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots, and
wherein the defined criteria comprises data indicative of environmental conditions, wherein the environmental conditions include a geographical location of the lidar system of a time of day of the plurality of laser pulse shots;
Shand, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
(2) determines a plurality of detection intervals associated with the laser pulse shots based on the processed shot list and defined criteria, the detection intervals for detecting returns from their associated laser pulse shots ([0082] “the operation of determining the light pulse schedule may include determining an object and a corresponding object distance… the operations may include determining the listening window duration based on the corresponding object distance and a speed of the light pulse.”), and
wherein the defined criteria comprises data indicative of environmental conditions […] ([0082] “the operation of determining the light pulse schedule may include determining an object and a corresponding object distance… the operations may include determining the listening window duration based on the corresponding object distance and a speed of the light pulse.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ladar system of Dussan with the listening window of Shand to optimize scan resolution and/or speed (Shand: [0026] “by reducing the overall cycle time, at least some light emitters may be configured to fire more frequently and, in some embodiments, finer yaw resolution may be provided by the LIDAR system”).
The combination still does not teach:
wherein the environmental conditions include a geographical location of the lidar system or a time of day of the plurality of laser pulse shots;
Droz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches, “The maximum distance sensitivity can be determined according to the maximum time delay the associated optical sensors wait for a return reflected signal following each pulse emission, which can itself be set according to the anticipated signal strength of a reflected signal at a particular distance given ambient lighting conditions, intensity of the emitted pulse, predicted reflectivity of environmental features, etc.” (Col. 14, Lines 22-42). Implied here is the well-known relationship between signal strength, noise, and maximum detectable distance – increased distance decreases return signal strength, decreased signal strength degrades detection, and increased noise degrades detection. Thus, Droz teaches setting a detection window based on anticipated maximum distance sensitivity given an expected signal-to-noise ratio. The inclusion of “ambient light conditions” in this consideration and the well-known correlation between ambient light and time of day, of which the examiner takes Official Notice, would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one choice for implementing this adjustment to the time window for return signals would be based on the time of day.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ladar device of Dussan in view of Shand with the detection window of Droz to further limit unnecessarily long detection windows by ensuring a detection window does not extend beyond the maximum distance sensitivity of the system (Droz: (Col. 14, Lines 22-42)).
Regarding claim 2, Dussan in view of Shand teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the environmental conditions include daytime ambient lighting conditions (Droz: (Col. 14, Lines 22-42) “The maximum distance sensitivity can be determined according to the maximum time delay the associated optical sensors wait for a return reflected signal following each pulse emission, which can itself be set according to the anticipated signal strength of a reflected signal at a particular distance given ambient lighting conditions, intensity of the emitted pulse, predicted reflectivity of environmental features, etc.” The inclusion of “ambient light conditions” in this consideration inherently includes daytime ambient light conditions.).
Regarding claim 3, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the environmental conditions include nighttime ambient and artificial lighting conditions (Droz: (Col. 14, Lines 22-42) “The maximum distance sensitivity can be determined according to the maximum time delay the associated optical sensors wait for a return reflected signal following each pulse emission, which can itself be set according to the anticipated signal strength of a reflected signal at a particular distance given ambient lighting conditions, intensity of the emitted pulse, predicted reflectivity of environmental features, etc.” The inclusion of “ambient light conditions” in this consideration inherently includes nighttime ambient and artificial lighting conditions.).
Regarding claim 5, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the environmental conditions include city environment conditions (Shand: [0027] “Systems and methods described herein include dynamic adjustment of the listening windows based on the emission angle of each light pulse and a maximum predicted distance for each yaw angle.”; FIG. 2, [0085-0090] describe adjusting the listening window based on detected objects in the environment: [0090] “upon receiving the reflected light, the system (e.g., system 100) may carry out block 222. Block 222 may include adjusting a subsequent listening window tlistening,2. In some embodiments, the subsequent listening window may correspond to the immediate next light pulse and/or another future light pulse that is anticipated to interact with the object in the environment.” This system of adjustment will inherently make adjustments in a city environment based on the increased density of objects.).
Regarding claim 6, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit, for each of a plurality of the laser pulse shots, identifies a pixel set of the array to use for sensing a return from that laser pulse shot (Dussan: [0056] “At step 622, a subset of pixels in the detector array 600 are selected based on the location of the targeted range point."), and
wherein the determined detection intervals are associated with corresponding identified pixel sets (Dussan: [0049] “the selective targeting of range points provided by the ladar transmitter pairs well with the selective readout provided by the multiplexer 604 so that the receiver can isolate detector readout to pixels of interest in an effort to improve SNR.”) and
wherein the photodetector circuit starts and stops collections from the identified pixel sets in accordance with their associated corresponding determined detection intervals (Shand: [0086] "That is, during the listening window between t0 and tlistening, the receiver subsystem (e.g., receiver subsystem 120) may be operable to receive a reflected light pulse that has interacted with an object in the environment.").
Regarding claim 7, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 6, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit identifies the pixel sets based on the range points that are targeted by the laser pulse shots (Dussan: [0056] “At step 622, a subset of pixels in the detector array 600 are selected based on the location of the targeted range point.").
Regarding claim 8, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 7, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the shot list identifies the targeted range points for the laser pulse shots by azimuth and elevation angles (Dussan: [0116] “3. Map the saturated range sample to a precise azimuth and elevation of origin.” The fact that range points can be mapped to azimuth and elevation in the context of identifying saturation points also means that whatever labeling may be used in the shot list, it is at least equivalently mappable.).
Regarding claim 9, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 6, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein each of the identified pixel sets comprises one or more of the pixels of the array (Dussan: [0053] “It should be understood that the control signal 612 can be effective to select a single sensor 602 at a time or it can be effective to select multiple sensors 602 at a time”).
Regarding claim 10, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 6, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals comprises (1) first data that indicates when to start collection from its corresponding identified pixel set and (2) second data that indicates when to stop collection its corresponding identified pixel set (Shand: [0086] “That is, during the listening window between t0 and tlistening, the receiver subsystem (e.g., receiver subsystem 120) may be operable to receive a reflected light pulse that has interacted with an object in the environment.” The values t0 and tlistening correspond to the start and stop times, respectively.).
Regarding claim 11, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein, for each of the plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise start and stop collection times for the identified pixel set associated with that determined detection interval (Shand: [0086] “That is, during the listening window between t0 and tlistening, the receiver subsystem (e.g., receiver subsystem 120) may be operable to receive a reflected light pulse that has interacted with an object in the environment.” The values t0 and tlistening correspond to the start and stop times, respectively.).
Regarding claim 12, Dussan in view of Shand teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the determined detection intervals are non-overlapping (Dussan: [0091] Describes MUX selection control logic. FIG. 11E shows only one readout signal active at a time.).
Regarding claim 13, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the defined criteria further comprise data indicative of a settle time for the pixels (Dussan: [0085] “To achieve pipelining, the process flow of FIG. 8 can be performed over a small, fixed, or variable-sized window of future shot list values. This will yield a precomputed set of values for a control loop that can be pipelined through the system during operation and allows the control circuit 608 to turn “on” (i.e., power up from a quiescent state) the amplifiers for pixels shortly before they are needed and giving them time to settle before readout occurs.”).
Regarding claim 14, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit activates pixels of the array to be used for detecting the returns sufficiently prior to when collections are to start from the activated pixels for a pixel settle time to have passed when the collections are to start from the activated pixels (Dussan: [0084] "Pipelining how the shots from the shot list 800 are processed within the control circuit 608 allows the system to fully power the amplifiers within the feedback matching network only when necessary. The amplifiers in the feedback matching network that correspond to pixels not needed for readout with respect to a targeted range point can be kept in a quiescent state ... the system can be configured to power the ith composite pixel at the time of the (i−1)th laser trigger. This pixel is then ready to measure the return associated with the ith laser trigger… If additional time is required to fully activate a pixel, the pipelining can be adjusted accordingly”).
Regarding claim 15, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the defined criteria further comprise data indicative of scheduled fire times for next laser pulse shots from the shot list (Dussan: FIG. 11E, MUX readout for a given pixel ends at the same time as the next readout begins. Where the next readout corresponds to the next scheduled laser pulse shot.).
Regarding claim 16, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
further comprising: a signal processing circuit that processes sensed signal data from the photodetector circuit to (1) detect the returns within the sensed signal data and (2) compute return data for the detected returns (Dussan: [0064] “The FPGA 704 includes hardware logic that is configured to process the digital samples and ultimately return information about range and/or intensity with respect to the range points based on the reflected ladar pulses. In an example embodiment, the FPGA 704 can be configured to perform peak detection on the digital samples produced by the ADC 702.”).
Regarding claim 17, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a plurality of processors that share processing of the sensed signal data (Shand: [0078] “The controller 150 may include one or more processors 152”).
Regarding claim 18, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
further comprising: a lidar transmitter, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror (Dussan: [0036] “the ladar transmitter 102 can take the form of a ladar transmitter that includes scanning mirrors”), and wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the scannable mirror (Dussan: [0035] "The ladar transmitter 102 is configured to transmit a plurality of ladar pulses 108 toward a plurality of range points 110").
Regarding claim 25, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the lidar transmitter and the photodetector circuit are in a bistatic arrangement with respect to each other (Dussan: [0083] “While the example embodiments discussed below are focused on an advanced receiver that operates in isolation, it should be understood that the receiver might be combined with other systems, such as scanning receive mirrors, or transmissive equivalents, which might reduce required pixel count.”).
Regarding claim 28, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the array comprises a two-dimensional (2D) array of pixels (Dussan: FIG. 6A, Detector Array 600 is two-dimensional.).
Regarding claim 29, the method claim presented herein matches the scope of the apparatus of claim 1, thus Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the method of claim 29 as described above regarding the lidar system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the article of manufacture claim presented herein matches the scope of the apparatus of claim 1, thus Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the article of manufacture of claim 30 as described above regarding the lidar system of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Bijelic et al. (Bijelic, Mario, Tobias Gruber, and Werner Ritter. "A benchmark for lidar sensors in fog: Is detection breaking down?." 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018.), hereinafter Bijelic.
Regarding claim 4, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the environmental conditions include weather conditions.
Bijelic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches approximate maximum viewing distance based on weather conditions (Pg. 763, Section IV. (B.) “Maximum viewing distances”, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included reduction to maximum viewing distance as a result of weather conditions in the consideration to the detection windows of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice to further limit unnecessarily long detection windows by ensuring a detection window does not extend beyond the maximum distance sensitivity of the system (Droz: (Col. 14, Lines 22-42)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Darrer et al. (US 20200386867 A1), hereinafter Darrer.
Regarding claim 19, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 18, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in a resonant mode.
Darrer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a scanning mirror in resonant mode ([0037] “The mirror 122 may be part of a mirror system 120, and may be moved (e.g. according an oscillatory motion) driven by a mirror driver 121.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice with the oscillatory scanning mirror of Darrer, as on choice among several options for scanning mirrors with predictable results.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Darrer and Ishida et al. (Ishida, Takami, et al. "Wide angle and high frequency (> 120 Degrees@ 10 KHZ/90 Degrees@ 30 KHZ) resonant Si-MEMS mirror using a novel tuning-fork driving." 2020 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). IEEE, 2020.), hereinafter Ishida.
Regarding claim 20, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Darrer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 100 Hz and 20 kHz.
Ishida, in the field of resonant mirrors, teaches a mems mirror with a 10kHz frequency (Ishida: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the scanning mirror of Ishida in the modified ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, Official Notice, and Darrer to provide a wide-angle and high-frequency scan (Ishida: abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Darrer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the lidar transmitter scans the scannable mirror in the resonant mode at a scan frequency in a range between 10 kHz and 15 kHz.
Ishida, in the field of resonant mirrors, teaches a mems mirror with a 10kHz frequency (Ishida: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the scanning mirror of Ishida in the modified ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, Official Notice, and Darrer to provide a wide-angle and high-frequency scan (Ishida: abstract).
Claim(s) 22-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Dussan (US 9885778 B2), hereinafter Dussan '778.
Regarding claim 22, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 18, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors.
Dussan ‘778 teaches:
wherein the scannable mirror comprises a first scannable mirror and a second scannable mirror, wherein the lidar transmitter transmits the laser pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second scannable mirrors ((Col. 12, Lines 29-45) “the beam scanner 304 includes dual MEMS mirrors… The X-axis MEMS mirror 500 will reflect this laser pulse to the Y-axis scanning MEMS mirror 502… The Y-axis MEMS mirror 502 is positioned to receive the reflected laser pulse from mirror 500 and further reflect this laser pulse to a location within the scan area 510 corresponding to the range point on the shot list that is being targeted by the beam scanner 304.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the two-mirror scanning system of Dussan ‘778 in the ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice as one of the options for two-axis scanning with predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Dussan ‘778 teaches the lidar system of claim 22, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the lidar transmitter scans the second scannable mirror in a point-to-point mode according to a step function that varies as a function of the range points targeted with the laser pulse shots (Dussan ‘778: (Col. 17, Lines 41-60) “The dynamic scan pattern of FIG. 8B can be employed with a beam scanner that includes dual scanning mirrors where the X-axis mirror scans in two directions as a fast axis mirror at a resonant frequency and where the Y-axis mirror scans in two directions as a slow axis mirror in a non-resonant, point-to-point mode.” ).
Regarding claim 24, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Dussan ‘778 teaches the lidar system of claim 22, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the second scannable mirror is optically downstream from the first scannable mirror (Dussan ‘778: (Col. 12, Lines 29-45) “The X-axis MEMS mirror 500 will reflect this laser pulse to the Y-axis scanning MEMS mirror 502”; See also FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 26, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice teaches the lidar system of claim 18, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
further comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots, and wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source.
Dussan ‘778 teaches:
further comprising a laser source that generates the laser pulse shots ((Col. 10, Lines 35-48) “For example, the laser source 300 can be a pulsed fiber laser.”), and
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to a laser energy model for the laser source ((Col. 5, Lines 20-46) “the shot list serves as an ordered list of the selected range points… where the ordering takes into consideration the capabilities and limitations of the scanning ladar transmission system 104 as well as a desired scan pattern for the system operation.”; (Col. 5, Line 47 - Col. 6, Line 5) “the sparse array may also support improved range for the ladar system primarily because the laser could operate with a lower repetition rate, in which case the laser can exhibit a higher amount of energy per pulse”; (Col. 16, Lines 52-65) “A minimum pixel spacing constraint for the dynamic scan pattern can govern the need for line repeats. The minimum pixel spacing corresponds to the fastest rate the laser source 300 can fire back-to-back shots.” These comments imply a laser energy model is included in the “capabilities and limitations of the scanning ladar transmission system” that are taken into consideration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the laser energy model of Dussan ‘778 in the considerations for the shot list of the ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice in order to ensure that minimum pixel spacing is maintained (Dussan ‘778: (Col. 16, Lines 52-65)).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, Official Notice, and Dussan '778 and further in view of Darrer.
Regarding claim 27, Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Dussan ‘778 teaches the lidar system of claim 26, as described above, including consideration of a laser energy model, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to […] and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror.
Darrer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots in the shot list according to […] and a mirror motion model for the scannable mirror ([0008] “the laser pulse generation is synchronized with the pulse trigger control signal, which in turn is synchronized with the estimated motion information, which in turn is synchronized with the feedback positional measurements, which in turn are synchronized with the motion of the mirror. Accordingly, the laser pulses will only be triggered when the mirror is actually at the preselected positions.”; [0010-0011] “there is provided a positional estimator (which may be based, for example, on a Kalman filter) including: a predictor, to predict motion information associated to the motion of the mirror”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the mirror motion model in the ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand, Droz, and Official Notice and further in view of Dussan ‘778 to ensure that light is emitted in the predetermined direction (Darrer: [0008] “Hence, the light will only be directed in the preselected directions.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stultz et al. (US 20220021174 A1) teaches a laser amplifier energy model to control pulse width for a given pulse frequency rate.
Pan (US 10509112 B1) teaches a laser energy model used to dynamically control a pump input to maintain a steady output pulse intensity.
Schaffner et al. (US 20180356528 A1) teaches activating detector amplifiers prior to a readout to provide sufficient warm-up time.
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 SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (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.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights