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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by applicant on 04/27/22, 04/28/22, 11/09/22, 07/12/23, 04/29/26 and 07/22/26. Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 22, 25, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan (US 2006/0153558).
1, 28 mutatis mutandis: Tan discloses a ladar system [at least 0036, 0052-53 teach ranging capabilities; see rejection of body of claim] comprising:
a first mirror for scanning across a field of view [0017, first scanning mirror 118] in a resonant mode [0019 teaches the first scanning mirror has a faster rate of rotation (high speed); 0032 teaches the high speed scanner is a resonant scanner];
a second mirror for scanning across the field of view [0018, second scanning mirror 126] in a point-to-point mode that varies as a function of a shot list, the shot list comprising a plurality of locations for range points in a scan area of the field of view that are to be targeted with ladar pulse shots [0021-22 teaches a shot list in the form of a scan pattern, as well as the scan pattern taking the form of a raster pattern, which employes line scanning, wherein lines are composed of a plurality of points, therefore the raster line scanning includes point scanning];
a laser source that transmits ladar pulse shots toward the targeted range points via the first and second mirrors in accordance with the shot list [0017, lasers 102, 104, 106];
a photodetector array comprising a plurality of photodetector pixels that sense incident light representative of returns from the transmitted ladar pules shots [0026, photodetector 144 as an array of photosensors or photosensitive elements]; and
a circuit that adaptively controls which of the photodetector pixels are used for reading out signals corresponding to the sensed incident light signals over time based on a mapping relationship between the photodetector pixels and the locations for the targeted range points [at least 0047 teaches mapping an object location within a field of view (an environment); at least claim 18 teaches illuminating selected pixels on scan lines to project an image and for controlling each pixel of the scan lines being serially received in its turn]; and
wherein the circuit includes feedback circuitry that amplifies outputs from the photodetector pixels in a controlled feedback loop [at least 0028 teaches amplifying the electrical signal generated by a photodiode; 0026 teaches feedback loop in which a scan allows for a picture or view of an environment to be viewable, and wherein an obstruction may be present at times within the environment during the scan and/or subsequent scans].
2, 29 mutatis mutandis: Tan discloses the circuit selects defined subsets of the photodetector pixels to use for reading out the signals corresponding to the sensed incident light signals over time based on the mapping relationship [at least 0028, 0044 and claim 18 teach selecting activating certain pixels].
3, 30 mutatis mutandis: Tan discloses the circuit selects the defined subsets in a pattern that follows the shot list in accordance with the mapping relationship [claim 18].
9: Tan discloses a control circuit that generates the control signal based on the shot list [see at least claim 28].
11: Tan discloses the circuit selectively controls which of the photodetector pixels are eligible for inclusion in the defined subsets based on feedback with respect to prior frames [at least 0042, 0044, 0047].
13: Tan discloses an adaptive mask that controls a dynamic range for the read out signals by adjusting how many of the photodetector pixels are to be included in the defined subsets based on feedback from prior frames [see at least 0035, 0057].
14: Tan discloses the circuit generates an adaptive mask that adjusts which of the photodetector pixels are eligible for inclusion in the defined subsets based on feedback from prior frames that indicates a presence of interfering light that would impact one or more of the photodetector pixels [0035; 0057].
15: Tan discloses an adaptive mask that adjusts which of the photodetector pixels are eligible for inclusion in the defined subsets based on feedback from prior frames that indicates a presence of a scattering object that would impact one or more of the photodetector pixels [0028].
17: Tan discloses the circuit adjusts timing for the transmitted ladar pulse shots based on feedback from prior frames to reduce interference on the photodetector pixels of the defined subsets [at least 0023].
18: Tan discloses the feedback from prior frames comprises data derived from prior ladar pulse returns [at least 0026].
22: Tan discloses the feedback circuitry is reset at each ladar pulse shot [as supported by each measurement and/or scan].
25: Tan discloses a processor that executes a range point down selection algorithm based on environmental scene data to select a subset of range points in the field of view to be targeted with the ladar pulse shots [as supported by scanning regions over a field of view and/or targeting certain objects].
27: Tan discloses the first and second mirrors scan along axes that are orthogonal relative to each other [0028].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12, 16, 20-21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2006/0153558).
12: Tan teaches selective pixel activation (see rejection of at least claim 1 above). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious a need for determination and alert of pixels that are not working as expected, since specific pixel activation is necessary for accurate and efficient mapping. It follows that a system designed to indicate an improperly function pixel, or even other system component, is well within the knowledge and skill of lidar system development and operation.
16: Tan teaches a means for avoiding saturation (see at least 0035-36), however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious removing a center pixel from consideration, since it is well known in the art that the center pixel of an image can be targeted and its saturation reduced by combining local masking with saturation adjustment such that only that one pixel is desaturated leaving the remainder of the image unaffected.
20: Tan teaches selective pixel activation (see rejection of at least claim 1 above). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that a change in the pixels that are activated from measurement to measurement may correspond to location of return pulses in the environment, range of return pulses from the environment, etc, as the lidar system scans across the environment. Thus, lidar systems utilizing selective pixel activation are known in the art and do not produce any new or unexpected results.
21: Tan teaches the resonance consideration (see rejection of claim 1) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the resonance-based system would include matching feedback circuitry, since it is known in the art that matching resonance of transmitting and received pulses, for instance, correlates the pulses for purposes of noise reduction, for example.
23: A person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar system scanning and measurement would find obvious that output energy of a laser source is nearly always intended to correspond the range or distance the light is expected to travel, and/or to compensate for environment factors. It follows that a lidar system such as disclosed in Tan would reasonably adjust energy of an outgoing pulse in order to compensate for attenuation and/or in order to ensure that enough light reaches and is returned from a target within an environment to be measured.
24: A person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar system scanning and measurement would find obvious removing a ladar pulse shot from a shot list for the purpose of eliminating unreliable data and/or unnecessary data, as is well known.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10, 19, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2006/0153558) in view of Gilliland (US 9420264).
4: Tan teaches photodetector pixels included in defined subsets and shot list in the rejection(s) above. Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches a multiplexer and control signal [see descriptions of Fig. 2].
5: Tan teaches the feedback circuitry and amplifier in the rejection(s) above. Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches a multiplexer [see descriptions of Fig. 2] and amplifiers (see descriptions of fig. 15) and their arrangements (see at least figs. 2, 9, 15).
6: Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches attaching and embedding various system components on/within a substrate [see at least col 6 for details about embedding options for components].
7: Tan teaches the feedback circuitry serves as a matching network in resonance with the returns [see at least 0032 for resonant features].
8: The combination of Tan (teaching resonance and selective pixel activation) and Gilliland (teaching multiplexing) would lend a person of ordinary skill in the art to find obvious that in a system where multiplexing is utilized for selective pixel activation in a resonant system, it follows that the arrangement would be implemented for each multiplexing line, since that would be necessary to determine which pixels are activated based on resonant features.
10: Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches a signal processing circuit that detects the returns based on the read out signals selected by the multiplexer [see at least col 8, description of fig. 2].
Regarding claims 4-6, 8, 10: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser measurement system disclosed in Tan with the multiplexer and embedded components disclosed in Gilliland with a reasonable expectation of success because multiplexing allows for selective signal inputs for desired routing and embedding is known to allow for improving durability, accuracy and performance of lidar systems.
19: Tan teaches the prior frames from the rejections above. Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches video frames [end of col 5-beginning of col 6].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser measurement system disclosed in Tan with the video frames disclosed in Gilliland with a reasonable expectation of success because such enables full 3D object modeling and tracking as well as scene enhancements.
26: Tan explicitly lacks, but Gilliland teaches a Gaussian pulse shape [col 19, line 10-28].
Regarding claim 26: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the laser measurement system disclosed in Tan with the Gaussian pulse shape disclosed in Gilliland with a reasonable expectation of success because such a pulse shape has known advantages in lidar, such as for noise reduction and range and intensity extraction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights