DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive due to the broadness of the claims.
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, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 US 20090262760 A1 in view of D3 US 20040233420 A1.
Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches
1, 13, 20 A LIDAR system, comprising:
at least one processor(606+608+618) configured to:
control at least one light source(604) for emitting a light flux;(fig. 11)
control(616) at least one light deflector(614) to deflect light from the at least one light source in order to scan a field of view;[0117][0177](scanner is set to scan region of the interest when for example car is parked )
a detector array, comprising a plurality of detector cells(fig. 9 two detectors operating at different wavelength)
detect an object within the field of view based on first reflections from the field of view received by at least a second detector cell in the detector array; (both sensors detect object but at different time [0159])
detect an object within the field of view based on first reflections from the field of view received by at least one sensor;[0179]
determine an actual position of the at least one light deflector based on second reflections from the field of view received of one or more first detector cells, different from the second detector cell, in the detector array[0159](two detectors identify the position , one position can be called)
determine a first position of the at least one light deflector based on second reflections from the field of view received by a plurality of detector cells; and[0177](Hardware controller 606 sets scanner driver 616 to a required mode of operation. Scanner driver 616 then mechanically sets the mode of operation of scanner 614, which will scan a volume of interest in front of LADAR system 600. The pulsed beam of light, which is provided to scanner 614 by transceiver optics 610, is then emitted as an output pulsed beam of light 626, towards the volume of interest of system 600. Hardware controller 606 can also set scanner 614 to scan a volume of interest which is located at a predetermined distance in front of LADAR system 600.)
control a repositioning of the at least one light deflector to a second position based on the first position of the at least one light deflector and an intended illumination location.[0177](after vehicle moves for example Using this location prediction, hardware controller 606 can set scanner 614 to scan the volume of interest which LADAR system 600 will encounter in 10 seconds, and not the volume of interest it is currently encountering.)
but does not explicitly teach
identify a deviation of the actual position of the at least one light deflector relative to an intended illumination location; and reposition the at least one light deflector to correct the identified deviation.
D3 teaches
identify a deviation of the actual position of the at least one light deflector relative to an intended illumination location; and reposition the at least one light deflector to correct the identified deviation.[0015]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to correct the aiming of the laser beam.
6, 18 The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a distance to the object based on the second reflections received by the plurality of detector cells.(implicit it is lidar device)
8. The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of detector cells output data indicative of time of flight for the second reflections.(implicit LIDAR)
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D3.
4., 16 The LIDAR system of claim 2, wherein the detector array includes a focal plane detector array.(matter of design choice)
Claim(s) bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and D3 in view of D2 US 20180113216 A1.
Regarding claim 5, 17 D1 does not explicitly teach but D2 teaches
5, 17 The LIDAR system of claim 4, wherein:
the plurality of detector cells are adjacent to the at least one second detector cell.
7, 19 The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the first reflections and the second reflections reach the LIDAR system substantially concurrently. (fig. 4F)
9. The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of detector cells are separate from the at least one sensor.(fig. 4F)
10. The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of detector cells are cells of a camera sensor.[0102]
11. The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the at least one light deflector deflects reflections from the field of view towards the plurality of detector cells.(fig. 1C)
12. The LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the at least one light deflector to deflect light from the intended illumination location.(fig. 1C)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to detect multiple objects in the scene.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights