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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 12/29/2025 in which claims 1, 29, and 30 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Currently claims 1-30 are pending for examination in this application.
Based on the applicant’s amendments:
The previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Following the amendments of claim 1, claims 2-4 no longer further limit the subject of the claims upon which they depend. Notably, claim 1 now contains: accessing map data and determining the detection interval based on that data (claim 2); obtaining road curvature information from the map data and determining the detection interval based on that information (claim 3); and where both a minimum and maximum range are determined based on the road curvature information (claim 4). Claims 2-4 do not contain any limitations directed to other subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-19, 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) and Grauer et al. (US 20150160340 A1), hereinafter Grauer.
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 map data indicative of a geographic location for the system,
and wherein the control circuit accesses the map data based on the geographic location to obtain road curvature information, determines minimum and maximum range values for each detection interval based on the road curvature information, and translate the minimum and maximum range values into start and stop collection times for corresponding pixel sets.
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 map data indicative of a geographic location for the system ([0027] “listening windows may be adjusted based on how far the light pulses are anticipated to travel before they interact with the environment (e.g., the ground). The maximum predicted distance may be based on the pose of the LIDAR system and/or the vehicle associated with the LIDAR system (e.g., the pose of the vehicle) and/or may be based on elevation data, which may be obtained by mapping data or sampling data.”).
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 fails to teach:
wherein the control circuit accesses the map data based on the geographic location to obtain road curvature information, determines minimum and maximum range values for each detection interval based on the road curvature information, and translate the minimum and maximum range values into start and stop collection times for corresponding pixel sets.
Grauer, in the related field of light-based distance ranging, teaches:
wherein the control circuit accesses the map data based on the geographic location to obtain road curvature information ([0044] “Road geometrics may be provided by curve detection as described in FIG. 4 flow chart and/or by GPS location as related to map.”),
determines minimum and maximum range values for each detection interval based on the road curvature information ([0044] “The gated imaging system may process and/or display and/or detect targets only in a desired DOF ("Slice") which is related to the vehicle speed and/or the viewed scenery road geometrics and/or road conditions… For example, in road geometrics DOF ("Slice") dependent case at nighttime and at nighttime with harsh weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow etc.), where a DOF ("Slice") will be 150 m to 250 m for a straight road and DOF ("Slice") will be 25 m to 150 m for a curved road.” Note that both the minimum and maximum range values are adjusted.), and
translate the minimum and maximum range values into start and stop collection times for corresponding pixel sets ([0024-25] “Hereinafter a single "Gate" (i.e. at least a single light source pulse illumination followed by at least a single sensor exposure per a sensor readout) utilizes a specific T.sub.Laser, T.sub.II and T.sub.Off timing as defined above… Each DOF may have a certain DOF parameters that includes at least on the following; R.sub.0, R.sub.min and R.sub.max.”. See also, Dussan: [0052] and the listening window adjustment of Shand for an indication of compatibility of the concepts of Grauer being applied to the modified ladar system of Dussan in view of Shand.).
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 road geometry dependent adjustment of a range of interest of Grauer, to maintain information from the primary range of interest while further reducing unnecessary power to the amplifiers.
Regarding claim 2, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit (1) accesses the map data based on the geographic location for the system, wherein the accessed map data provides information about an environment around the geographic location (Grauer: [0044] “Road geometrics may be provided by curve detection as described in FIG. 4 flow chart and/or by GPS location as related to map.”) and
(2) determines the detection intervals based on the accessed map data (Grauer: [0044] “The gated imaging system may process and/or display and/or detect targets only in a desired DOF ("Slice") which is related to the vehicle speed and/or the viewed scenery road geometrics and/or road conditions… For example, in road geometrics DOF ("Slice") dependent case at nighttime and at nighttime with harsh weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow etc.), where a DOF ("Slice") will be 150 m to 250 m for a straight road and DOF ("Slice") will be 25 m to 150 m for a curved road.”).
Regarding claim 3, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the provided information comprises road curvature information (Grauer: [0044] “Road geometrics may be provided by curve detection as described in FIG. 4 flow chart and/or by GPS location as related to map.” Note also the explicit example of road curvature in the same paragraph.) and
wherein the control circuit determines a detection interval based on the road curvature information (Grauer: [0044] “The gated imaging system may process and/or display and/or detect targets only in a desired DOF ("Slice") which is related to the vehicle speed and/or the viewed scenery road geometrics and/or road conditions… For example, in road geometrics DOF ("Slice") dependent case at nighttime and at nighttime with harsh weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow etc.), where a DOF ("Slice") will be 150 m to 250 m for a straight road and DOF ("Slice") will be 25 m to 150 m for a curved road.”).
Regarding claim 4, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit sets a maximum range for use in the detection interval that is based on the road curvature information (Grauer: [0044] “The gated imaging system may process and/or display and/or detect targets only in a desired DOF ("Slice") which is related to the vehicle speed and/or the viewed scenery road geometrics and/or road conditions… For example, in road geometrics DOF ("Slice") dependent case at nighttime and at nighttime with harsh weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow etc.), where a DOF ("Slice") will be 150 m to 250 m for a straight road and DOF ("Slice") will be 25 m to 150 m for a curved road.”).
Regarding claim 5, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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.”),
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.” Along with the additionally applied timing window of Grauer: [0024-25]).
Regarding claim 6, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 5, 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 7, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 6, 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 8, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 5, 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 9, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the identified pixel sets follow a pattern that correspond to the range points 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.” As each subset of pixels is based on the corresponding targeted range point, the series of pixel subsets will inherently follow a pattern that corresponds to the series of targeted range points.).
Regarding claim 10, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 5, 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.; Additionally the timing window of Grauer notes start and stop times: [0024-25]).
Regarding claim 11, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein for each of a plurality of the determined detection intervals, the first and second data comprise estimates of minimum and maximum ranges for the range point targeted by the laser pulse shot associated with that determined detection interval.
The examiner notes that the relationship between time-of-flight and distance is fundamentally well-known in the field of lidar technology (e.g. Grauer: [0024-25] “Hereinafter a single "Gate" (i.e. at least a single light source pulse illumination followed by at least a single sensor exposure per a sensor readout) utilizes a specific T.sub.Laser, T.sub.II and T.sub.Off timing as defined above… Each DOF may have a certain DOF parameters that includes at least on the following; R.sub.0, R.sub.min and R.sub.max.”; The equations of FIG. 13 further show the relationship between “R” distances and “T” timings.), and thus the start and stop times of a listening window are linked to the minimum and maximum ranges, and such a conversion would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the control circuit translates the minimum and maximum range estimates into start and stop collection times for the identified pixel sets associated with the determined detection intervals (Grauer: [0024-25] “Hereinafter a single "Gate" (i.e. at least a single light source pulse illumination followed by at least a single sensor exposure per a sensor readout) utilizes a specific T.sub.Laser, T.sub.II and T.sub.Off timing as defined above… Each DOF may have a certain DOF parameters that includes at least on the following; R.sub.0, R.sub.min and R.sub.max.”; The equations of FIG. 13 further show the relationship between “R” distances and “T” timings.).
Regarding claim 13, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 (Grauer: [0024-25] “Hereinafter a single "Gate" (i.e. at least a single light source pulse illumination followed by at least a single sensor exposure per a sensor readout) utilizes a specific T.sub.Laser, T.sub.II and T.sub.Off timing as defined above… Each DOF may have a certain DOF parameters that includes at least on the following; R.sub.0, R.sub.min and R.sub.max.”; The equations of FIG. 13 further show the relationship between “R” distances and “T” timings.).
Regarding claim 14, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 15, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 16, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 17, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 18, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 17, 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 19, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, 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 and Grauer 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 and Grauer 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 and Grauer teaches the article of manufacture of claim 30 as described above regarding the lidar system of claim 1.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer and further in view of Darrer et al. (US 20200386867 A1), hereinafter Darrer.
Regarding claim 20, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, 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 and Grauer with the oscillatory scanning mirror of Darrer, as on choice among several options for scanning mirrors with predictable results.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 21, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer and further in view of Darrer teaches the lidar system of claim 20, 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 and Grauer and further in view of Darrer to provide a wide-angle and high-frequency scan (Ishida: abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer and further in view of Darrer teaches the lidar system of claim 20, 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 and Grauer and further in view of Darrer to provide a wide-angle and high-frequency scan (Ishida: abstract).
Claim(s) 23-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer and further in view of Dussan (US 9885778 B2), hereinafter Dussan '778.
Regarding claim 23, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, 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 and Grauer as one of the options for two-axis scanning with predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer and further in view of Dussan ‘778 teaches the lidar system of claim 23, 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 26, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer teaches the lidar system of claim 19, 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 and Grauer 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, Grauer, and Dussan '778 and further in view of Darrer.
Regarding claim 27, Dussan in view of Shand and Grauer 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 and Grauer 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:
Morarity et al. (US 11796643 B2) teaches a lidar system which can adapt a region of interest based on road curvature, including adjustments to detection range.
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.
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