DETAILED ACTION
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
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 21st November, 2025.
Claims 2-7 and 9-21 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new Claims were added; therefore, claims 1-21 are pending in current application and are addressed below.
The objections to Figs. 4B, 4D, and 7C have been withdrawn.
The objections to claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-25, filed on 21st November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in page 10 (paragraph 2) that according to at least the above referenced paragraphs of Becker, the system disclosed in Becker, uses two cameras with different fields of view that capture structured light patterns, but the cameras do not appear to simultaneously detect returns form the same laser pulse shot using separate readout channels as required by claim 1.
However, Becker disclosed Fig. 2, paragraph [0036]-[0048], shows the operation of the scanner 20 with respect to the projected light 28 (only one project light in this embodiment as shown in Fig. 1), camera 26 (wide FOV camera) and camera 24 (small FOV camera). In paragraph [0049], further disclosed while the process of Fig. 2 is shown as a linear or sequential process, in other embodiments one or more of the steps shown may be executed in parallel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognized that the detection of camera 26 and camera 24 not only process as a linear or sequential steps, but also can be executed in parallel. Therefore, Becker does teach the limitation of “simultaneously detect returns form the same laser pulse shot using separate readout channel” as required by claim 1. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 20130293684 A1, hereinafter “Becker”), modify in view of Field (US 20190355773 A1, hereinafter “Field”).
Regarding claim 1, Becker teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0032], 1st lens 42, 1st field of view 40);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], 2nd lens 46, 2nd field of view 48; Fig. 1 shows FOV 48 smaller than FOV 40; [0033], although the FOVs of the cameras 24 (48) and 26 (40) are shown not to overlap in fig. 1, the FOVs may partially overlap or totally overlap); and
photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses (1) a first return signal in a first of the channels for detecting a return from a laser that targets a location in the second field of view, wherein the first return signal is based on incident light passed by the first lens, and (2) a second return signal in a second of the channels for detecting the return, wherein the second return signal is based on incident light passed by the second lens (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], [0032], photosensitive sensor 38 and 44 (may be CCD type or CMOS type having an array of pixels) paired with lens 42 and 46. Sensors 38/44 generates a digital image/representation of the area 40/48 within sensor’s FOV).
Becker does not teach,
wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view.
Field teaches (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0066]) photodetector system 1100 includes a light source 1102 and a plurality of SPAD circuits 1104 (equivalent to plurality of channels of readout circuitry) disposed on a PCB 1106; [0067] light source 1102 generate one or more light pulses directed to a desired target and reflected back to the photodetector system 1100; [0061], SPAD circuit 1104 includes a SPAD and a fast gating circuit configured to operate together to detect a photo incident upon the SPAD and generate an output pulse when SPAD circuit 1004 detects a photon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is to include plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal from a target in the field of view (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0061], [0066]-[0067]) for different lens system taught by Becker.
Regarding claim 2, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 1, wherein the photodetector circuitry comprises (1) a first photodetector array for sensing incident light passed by the first lens and (2) a second photodetector array for sensing incident light passed by the second lens (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], [0032], photosensitive sensor 38 and 44 (CCD type or CMOS type having an array of pixels) paired with lens 42 and 46. Sensors 38/44 generates a digital image/representation of the area 40/48 within sensor’s FOV).
Regarding claim 4, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 1, further comprising: a signal processing circuit that detects the return based on the first return signal and/or the second return signal (Becker; Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0036], step 1262, the project 28 first emits light to the object 34 and reflected light 62 received by the camera 26. The 3D profile of the surface 32 image was captured by the photosensitive array 38 within the camera 26. The controller 50 or remote processing system 56 determines 3D coordinates of the points on the surface 32, a point cloud may be created of the entire object 34).
Regarding claim 5, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 4, wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first return signal if the second return signal is oversaturated (Becker; Fig. 2, [0037], during the scanning process, the controller 50 or remote processing system 56 may detect an undesirable condition or problem (error) in the point cloud data (error in or absence of point cloud data (too little or too much light (equivalent to oversaturated signal) reflected from the area); certain points on the object may be angled in such a way to produce a very bright specular reflectance known as a glint); [0040], if controller determines that the point cloud has error, a determination is made in block 1268 of whether the scanner is used in a manual or automated mode. [0043], decide the regions where additional measurements are desired; [0044], step 1272/1278 a measurement is made with the different FOV camera 24 to improve the resolution and better capability is provided to characterize feature such as holes and edges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field and further include wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first return signal if the second return signal is oversaturated taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that when controller determines that the point cloud has error (such as oversaturated as disclosed above [0037]), the controller discard the data and measure another data from different FOV (Becker; [0037], [0040], [0043]-[0044]). Though, Becker teaches the returned signal oversaturated in the large FOV sensor system and detects the return signal based on the small FOV sensor system (different than the claim of detect the return based on the 1st return signal (large FOV) if the 2nd return signal (small FOV) is oversaturated), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that when one of the sensor system shows an error signal (whether small or large FOV), then processor would choose the other sensor system to measure the signal.
Regarding claim 6, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 4, wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first return signal if the second return signal is corrupted by interference and/or noise (Becker; Fig. 2, [0037], during the scanning process, the controller 50 or remote processing system 56 may detect an undesirable condition or problem (error) in the point cloud data; [0039], another possible reason for an error in or an absence of point cloud data is multipath interference (equivalent to interference); [0040], if controller determines that the point cloud has error, a determination is made in block 1268 of whether the scanner is used in a manual or automated mode. [0043], decide the regions where additional measurement s are desired; [0044], step 1272/1278 a measurement is made with the different FOV camera 24 to improve the resolution and better capability is provided to characterize feature such as holes and edges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field and wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first return signal if the second return signal is corrupted by interference and/or noise taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that when controller determines that the point cloud has error (such as multipath interference as disclosed above [0039]), the controller discard the data and measure another data from different FOV (Becker; [0039], [0040], [0043]-[0044]). Though, Becker teaches the returned signal corrupted by interference in the large FOV sensor system and detects the return signal based on the small FOV sensor system (different than the claim of detect the return based on the 1st return signal (large FOV) if the 2nd return signal (small FOV) is corrupted by interference), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that when one of the sensor system shows an error signal (whether small or large FOV), then processor would choose the other sensor system to measure the signal.
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are the method claim possess nearly identical limitation to those of claim 1-2 and 4-6 and are thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Field, in view of Chang et al. (US 20170094150 A1, hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claim 3, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 1.
Becker does not teach, wherein the photodetector circuitry comprises a photodetector array shared by the first and second lenses.
Chang teaches, wherein the photodetector circuitry comprises a photodetector array shared by the first and second lenses (Chang; Fig. 4A, 4B, [0040], 1st image capture unit 102 (FOV1) and 2nd image capture unit 104 (FOV2) of the image capture system 400 may share the image sensor IS (formed by a charge coupled device (CCD), or CMOS or any photoelectric element)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field, include wherein the photodetector circuitry comprises a photodetector array shared by the first and second lenses taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the optical switch 406 for the image capture unit 102 and 104 such that they can share the image sensor IS. By changing the direction of the switch 406 can select which signal (signal from image capture unit 102 or 104) to be detected in the image sensor IS (Chang; Fig. 4A, 4B, [0040]-[0042]).
Claim 10 is the method claim possess nearly identical limitation to those of claim 3 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Field, in view of Ogasahara (US 20130016251 A1, hereinafter “Ogasahara”).
Regarding claim 7, Becker as modified above taches the lidar system as recited in claim 4.
Becker does not teach, wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first and second return signals to provide parallax correction.
Ogasahara teaches, wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first and second return signals to provide parallax correction (Ogasahara; Fig. 3, [0030], the image pickup processing circuit 20 processes the RAW image data output (from image sensor 23) and the monochromatic image data output (from image sensor 24), output the synthetic image data and storage in the frame memory 26 (used for parallax correction); Fig. 7, [0043], the monochromatic signal converter 41 converting monochromatic image data 51 into 2nd luminance information 53; [0045], the color signal separator 42 separating RAW image data 52 into 1st luminance information 54; [0051], Both luminance data (53, 54) pass through parallax amount calculator 43 and then pass through parallax corrector 44 for correcting the parallax of the luminance image which were from color image sensor 23 and monochromatic image sensor 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field, include wherein the signal processing circuit detects the return based on the first and second return signals to provide parallax correction taught by Ogasahara with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using two different return signals to provide parallax correction (Ogasahara; [0030], [0043], [0045], [0051]).
Claim 13 is the method claim possess nearly identical limitation to those of claim 7 and is thus rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Farris (US 20200191962 A1, hereinafter “Farris”).
Regarding claim 14, Becker teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0032], 1st lens 42, 1st field of view 40);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], 2nd lens 46, 2nd field of view 48; Fig. 1 shows FOV 48 smaller than FOV 40; [0033], although the FOVs of the cameras 24 (48) and 26 (40) are shown not to overlap in fig. 1, the FOVs may partially overlap or totally overlap);
Becker does not teach,
a switch that controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot.
Farris teaches,
a switch (Farris; Fig. 5, micromirror array 114) that controls which of the first and second lenses (Farris; Fig. 5, teaches two lens 118 and 502) are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024]-[0025], the laser beam 104 (pulsed laser beam [0003]) encounters and illuminates a target object 106 and reflected back to the receiver 110 (has two photon detectors 122, 504 (includes multiple sensors such as an array of photodiodes [0035])); a micromirror array 114 (equivalent to a switch) with activated mirror 116 directs the reflected signal from target 106 to either 1st detector 122 (through lens 118) or 2nd detector 504 (through lens 502); The activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, and thus the returning light is directed toward specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14 further comprising:
a multi-channel signal processing circuit that processes return signals from the first and second lenses to detect the returns in the channels (Becker; Fig. 1, [0034], the projector 28 and cameras 24, 26 are electrically coupled to a controller 50 (include one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors, memory and signal conditioning circuits). The scanner 20 can be manually activated by the operator to initiate operation and data capture by the camera 24, 26 (lens 46, 43; detector 44, 38). The image processing to determine the x, y, z coordinate data of the point cloud representing the surface 32 of object 34 is performed by the controller 50).
Regarding claim 17, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14.
Becker does not teach, wherein the switch comprises an optical switch.
Farris teaches, wherein the switch comprises an optical switch (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024], micromirror array 114 (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the micromirror array is equivalent to an optical switch because it changes the direction of light)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Farris, in view of Field.
Regarding claim 16, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14 further comprising: a photodetector circuit for reading out return signals from the first and second lenses (Becker; Fig. 1, photodetectors 38/44 paired to lens 42/46).
Becker does not teach,
with multiple readout channels.
Field teaches (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0066]) photodetector system 1100 includes a light source 1102 and a plurality of SPAD circuits 1104 (equivalent to plurality of channels of readout circuitry) disposed on a PCB 1106. [0067] light source 1102 generate one or more light pulses directed to a desired target and reflected back to the photodetector system1100; [0061], SPAD circuit 1104 includes a SPAD and a fast gating circuit configured to operate together to detect a photo incident upon the SPAD and generate an output pulse when SPAD circuit 1004 detects a photon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris, include with multiple readout channels taught by Field with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is to include plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal from a target in the field of view (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0061], [0066]-[0067]) for different lens system taught by Becker.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Farris, in view of Wang et al. (US 20190369242 A1, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 18, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14.
Becker does not teach, wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch.
Wang teaches, wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch (Wang; Fig. 1, Fig. 6, MUX 122 and step S606, [0044]. Use a multiplexer as an electronic switch to select for particular lenses and receivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris include wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that an electronic switch can select at least one receiver corresponds to the lens collecting the light return from the object (Wang; [0006]). The electronic switch can further provide a redundant failsafe option to select particular photodetector elements, in case the optical switch malfunctions. Such as in a case where light is directed to an undesired lens due to an optical switch malfunction, the electronic switch can be used to deactivate the detector elements associated with that lens, to predictable prevent any potential misreading or false signals.
Claim(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, modify in view of Farris, in view of Van Lierop et al. (US 20200400788 A1, “Van Lierop”).
Regarding claim 19, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14.
Becker does not teach,
a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates.
Farris teaches a micromirror array 114 (equivalent to a switch) with activated mirror 116 directs the reflected signal from target 106 to either 1st detector 122 (through lens 118) or 2nd detector 504 (through lens 502); The activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in (equivalent to control the switch based on the direction of the laser emission), and thus the returning light is directed toward specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
However, Becker modified in view of Farris still does not teach,
a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch “based on the shot coordinates”.
Van Lierop teaches, a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots (Van Lierop; Fig. 1, [0023], control 140, system tracks the position of the mirror (e.g., for certain angular positions of the mirror 115) in relation to shot emissions, and thus the shot coordinates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch taught by Farris, include a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates taught by Van Lierop with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using controller to select/deselect at least one laser 110a or 110b for scanning for certain angular position of the mirror 115 or selectively change the size of the field of view 120 for different scanning purpose (Van Lierop; [0023]). Further in combine with Farris which teaches that the activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, which can be performed by the controller already taught by Van Lierop as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 20, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 19.
Becker does not teach, wherein the control circuit controls the switch to use signals from both the first and second lenses for return detection based on defined criteria.
Farris further teaches, wherein the control circuit controls the switch to use signals from both the first and second lenses for return detection based on defined criteria (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024]-[0025] micromirror array 114, Uses a DMD as an optical switch for directing incoming light towards different receiving lens. The activated mirrors 116 for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, and thus the returning light is directed towards specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch and the control circuit controls the switch to use signals from both the first and second lenses for return detection based on defined criteria taught by Farris, include a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates taught by Van Lierop with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 21, Becker as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 19.
Becker does not teaches further comprising:
a lidar transmitter that transmits the laser pulse shots, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view; and
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time.
Van Lierop teaches further comprising:
a lidar transmitter that transmits the laser pulse shots, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view (Van Lierop; Fig. 1, [0022], lasers 110a and 110b which are deflected by a mirror 115 which oscillates in order to scan the laser beams over a scene); and
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time (Van Lierop; Fig. 1, [0022], two lasers 110a and 110b which are deflected by a mirror 115 which oscillates in order to scan the laser beams over a scene; equivalent to models energy available for the lase pulse shots over time) and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time (Van Lierop; [0023], the lasers are selected or deselected by controller for scanning based on angular position of the mirror 115; equivalent to a model of the mirror motion to determine this angular position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by Becker to include DMD switch and the control circuit controls the switch to use signals from both the first and second lenses for return detection based on defined criteria taught by Farris, include a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list, (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates and control the laser pulse shots based on laser energy model and mirror motion model taught by Van Lierop with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is that adding a scanning mirror would allow for further adaptability of the system as the positioning of the laser beams scanned into a scene could be changed without moving the entire LiDAR apparatus. Furthermore, using the “mirror motion model” would allow for dynamic change of the FOV to reduce SNR by allowing a different laser to be output at different mirror angular position (Van Lierop; [0003], [0022]-[023]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 which is depending on claim 1, 2 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 11604264 B2 (hereinafter “US Pat 264”) modified in view of Field.
Regarding claim 1, US Pat 264 teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (US Pat 264; 1st lens of claim 1);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (US Pat 264; 2nd lens of claim 1); and
photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses (US Pat 264; claim 5, line 1-2) (1) a first return signal in a first of the channels for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the second field of view, wherein the first return signal is based on incident light passed by the first lens (US Pat 264; claim 5, line 5-7), and (2) a second return signal in a second of the channels for detecting the return, wherein the second return signal is based on incident light passed by the second lens (US Pat 264; claim 5, line 8-10).
US Pat 264 does not teach, wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view.
Field teaches (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0066]) photodetector system 1100 includes a light source 1102 and a plurality of SPAD circuits 1104 (equivalent to plurality of channels of readout circuitry) disposed on a PCB 1106. [0067] light source 1102 generate one or more light pulses directed to a desired target and reflected back to the photodetector system1100; [0061], SPAD circuit 1104 includes a SPAD and a fast gating circuit configured to operate together to detect a photo incident upon the SPAD and generate an output pulse when SPAD circuit 1004 detects a photon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by US Pat 264 to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is to include plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal from a target in the field of view (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0061], [0066]-[0067]) for different lens system taught by US Pat 264.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 14, US Pat 264 teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (US Pat 264; 1st lens of claim 1);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (US Pat 264; 2nd lens of claim 1);
a switch that controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view (US Pat 264; switch of claim 1).
US Pat 264 does not teach, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot.
Farris teaches, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024]-[0025], the laser beam 104 (pulsed laser beam [0003]) encounters and illuminates a target object 106 and reflected back to the receiver 110 (has two photon detectors 122, 504 (includes multiple sensors such as an array of photodiodes [0035])); a micromirror array 114 (equivalent to a switch) with activated mirror 116 directs the reflected signal from target 106 to either 1st detector 122 (through lens 118) or 2nd detector 504 (through lens 502); The activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, and thus the returning light is directed toward specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by US Pat 264 to include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 which is depending on claim 1-2, 4 and 6 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 15, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, comprising:
a multi-channel signal processing circuit (US Pat 264; claim 6, line 9-14) that processes return signals from the first and second lenses to detect the returns in the channels (US Pat 264; claim 7, line 4-5).
Regarding claim 16, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, comprising: a photodetector circuit with multiple readout channels for reading out return signals from the first and second lenses (US Pat 264; claim 7, line 2-3).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 which is depending on claim 1 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 17, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an optical switch (US Pat 264; claim 2).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 which is depending on claim 1 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 18, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch (US Pat 264; claim 14).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 which is depending on claim 1 and 2 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 19, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, further comprising: a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates (US Pat 264; claim 4).
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 which is depending on claim 1 and 19 of US Pat 264 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 21, US Pat 264 as modified above teaches the lidar system as recited in claim 14, further comprising: a lidar transmitter that transmits the laser pulse shots, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view (US Pat 264; claim 19); and
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time (US Pat 264; claim 20).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27 which is depending on claim 17, 24 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. US 11635495 B1 (hereinafter “US Pat 495”) modified in view of Field.
Regarding claim 1, US Pat 495 teaches, a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (US Pat 495; 1st lens of claim 17);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (US Pat 495; 2nd lens of claim 17); and
photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses (US Pat 495; claim 27, line 2), (1) a first return signal in a first of the channels for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the second field of view, wherein the first return signal is based on incident light passed by the first lens (US Pat 495; claim 27, line 5-7), and (2) a second return signal in a second of the channels for detecting the return, wherein the second return signal is based on incident light passed by the second lens (US Pat 495; claim 27, line 8-10).
US Pat 495 does not teach, wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view.
Field teaches (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0066]) photodetector system 1100 includes a light source 1102 and a plurality of SPAD circuits 1104 (equivalent to plurality of channels of readout circuitry) disposed on a PCB 1106. [0067] light source 1102 generate one or more light pulses directed to a desired target and reflected back to the photodetector system1100; [0061], SPAD circuit 1104 includes a SPAD and a fast gating circuit configured to operate together to detect a photo incident upon the SPAD and generate an output pulse when SPAD circuit 1004 detects a photon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by US Pat 495 to include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is to include plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal from a target in the field of view (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0061], [0066]-[0067]) for different lens system taught by US Pat 495.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 14, US Pat 495 teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (US Pat 495; 1st lens of claim 17);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (US Pat 495; 2nd lens of claim 17);
a switch that controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view (US Pat 495; switch of claim 17)
US Pat 495 does not teach, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot.
Farris teaches, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024]-[0025], the laser beam 104 (pulsed laser beam [0003]) encounters and illuminates a target object 106 and reflected back to the receiver 110 (has two photon detectors 122, 504 (includes multiple sensors such as an array of photodiodes [0035])); a micromirror array 114 (equivalent to a switch) with activated mirror 116 directs the reflected signal from target 106 to either 1st detector 122 (through lens 118) or 2nd detector 504 (through lens 502); The activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, and thus the returning light is directed toward specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by US Pat 495 to include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 30 which is depending on claim 17 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 15, US Pat 495 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14 comprising: a multi-channel signal processing circuit that processes return signals from the first and second lenses to detect the returns in the channels (US Pat 495; claim 30, line 3-6).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 which is depending on claim 17 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 17, US Pat 495 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an optical switch (US Pat 495; claim 24).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 30 which is depending on claim 17 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 18, US Pat 495 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch (US Pat 495; claim 30).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26 which is depending on claim 17 and 24 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 19, US Pat 495 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14 further comprising: a control circuit that (1) processes a shot list that identifies a plurality of shot coordinates for the laser pulse shots and (2) controls the switch based on the shot coordinates (US Pat 495; claim 26).
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 which is depending on claim 17 and 18 of US Pat 495 modified in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 21, US Pat 495 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 19 further comprising: a lidar transmitter that transmits the laser pulse shots, wherein the lidar transmitter comprises a scannable mirror that is scannable to define where the laser pulse shots are targeted in the field of view (US Pat 495; claim 17, line 10-12); and
wherein the control circuit schedules the laser pulse shots based on (1) a laser energy model that models energy available for the laser pulse shots over time and (2) a mirror motion model that models motion for the scannable mirror over time (US Pat 495; claim 19, line 1-4).
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 which is depending on claim 1 and claim 12 of copending Application No. 17554237 (hereinafter “App No. 237”) in view of Becker, in view of Field.
Regarding claim 1, App No. 237 teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (App No. 237; 1st lens of claim 1);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view (App No. 237; 2nd lens of claim 1)
photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses (App No. 237; claim 13, line 1)
App No. 237 does not teach,
wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view;
wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out (1) a first return signal in a first of the channels for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the second field of view, wherein the first return signal is based on incident light passed by the first lens, and (2) a second return signal in a second of the channels for detecting the return, wherein the second return signal is based on incident light passed by the second lens.
Becker teaches, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], 2nd lens 46, 2nd field of view 48; Fig. 1 shows FOV 48 smaller than FOV 40; [0033], although the FOVs of the cameras 24 (48) and 26 (40) are shown not to overlap in fig. 1, the FOVs may partially overlap or totally overlap);
photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses (1) a first return signal in a first of the channels for detecting a return from a laser that targets a location in the second field of view, wherein the first return signal is based on incident light passed by the first lens, and (2) a second return signal in a second of the channels for detecting the return, wherein the second return signal is based on incident light passed by the second lens (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], [0023], photosensitive sensor 38 and 44 (may be CCD type or CMOS type having an array of pixels) paired with lens 42 and 46. Sensors 38/44 generates a digital image/representation of the area 40/48 within sensor’s FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by App No. 237 to include wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view and using photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses to detect return signal from different lens taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using different FOV of different camera unit with different FOV to detect the reflected signal from the target, when controller determines that the point cloud has error (such as oversaturated [0037]), the controller discard the data and measure another data from different unit with different FOV (Becker; [0037], [0040], [0043]-[0044]).
However, App No. 237 modified in view of Becker still not teach,
wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view.
Field teaches (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0066]) photodetector system 1100 includes a light source 1102 and a plurality of SPAD circuits 1104 (equivalent to plurality of channels of readout circuitry) disposed on a PCB 1106. [0067] light source 1102 generate one or more light pulses directed to a desired target and reflected back to the photodetector system1100; [0061], SPAD circuit 1104 includes a SPAD and a fast gating circuit configured to operate together to detect a photo incident upon the SPAD and generate an output pulse when SPAD circuit 1004 detects a photon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by App No. 237 to include wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view and using photodetector circuitry that senses incident light passed by the first and second lenses to detect return signal from different lens taught by Becker, include wherein the photodetector circuitry includes a plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal for detecting a return from a laser pulse shot that targets a location in the field of view taught by Field with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is to include plurality of channels of readout circuitry for reading out return signal from a target in the field of view (Field; Fig. 10, Fig, 11, [0061], [0066]-[0067]) for different lens system taught by App No. 237.
Claim 14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending App No. 237 in view of Becker, in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 14, App No. 237 teaches a lidar system comprising:
a first lens having a first field of view that receives incident light from the first field of view (App No. 237; 1st lens of claim 1);
a second lens having a second field of view that receives incident light from the second field of view (App No. 237; 2nd lens of claim 1)
a switch that controls which of the first and second lenses are used for detecting returns from laser pulse shots based on where the laser pulse shots are targeted in a field of view that encompasses the first and second fields of view (App No. 237; switch of claim 1)
App No. 237 does not teach,
wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view;
wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot.
Becker teaches, wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view (Becker; Fig. 1, [0031], 2nd lens 46, 2nd field of view 48; Fig. 1 shows FOV 48 smaller than FOV 40; [0033], although the FOVs of the cameras 24 (48) and 26 (40) are shown not to overlap in fig. 1, the FOVs may partially overlap or totally overlap);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by App No. 237 to include wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view taught by Becker with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using different FOV of different camera unit to detect the reflected signal from the target, when controller determines that the point cloud has error (such as oversaturated as disclosed above [0037]), the controller discard the data and measure another data from different unit with different FOV (Becker; [0037], [0040], [0043]-[0044]).
However, App No. 237 as modified in view of Becker still not teach,
wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot.
Farris teaches, wherein the switch is controllable to cause both of the first and second lenses to be used within a plurality of channels for return detection with respect to the same laser pulse shot (Farris; Fig. 5, [0024]-[0025], the laser beam 104 (pulsed laser beam [0003]) encounters and illuminates a target object 106 and reflected back to the receiver 110 (has two photon detectors 122, 504 (includes multiple sensors such as an array of photodiodes [0035])); a micromirror array 114 (equivalent to a switch) with activated mirror 116 directs the reflected signal from target 106 to either 1st detector 122 (through lens 118) or 2nd detector 504 (through lens 502); The activated mirrors for light direction are selected based on the direction that the laser is initially emitted in, and thus the returning light is directed toward specific receiving lenses based on whether the laser pulses are in a wider or narrower FOV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of this invention to modify the lidar system taught by App No. 237 to include wherein the second field of view is encompassed by and narrower than the first field of view taught by Becker, include DMD switch taught by Farris with a reasonable expectation of success. The reasoning for this is using the micromirror array to direct returned signal towards the desired receiving optics, while redirecting unwanted ambient light to another receiving optics which predictably increase the SNR of the detected return signals for easier data processing (Farris; [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 which is depending on claim 1 of copending App No. 237 in view of Becker, in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 17, App No. 237 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an optical switch (App No. 237; claim 12).
Claim 18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 which is depending on claim 1 of copending App No. 237 in view of Becker, in view of Farris.
Regarding claim 18, App No. 237 as modified above teaches the system as recited in claim 14, wherein the switch comprises an electronic switch (App No. 237; claim 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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 CHIA-LING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 ET.
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)270-3630. 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.
/CHIA-LING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645