DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 11/03/2025 in which claims 1 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added. Currently claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this application.
In response to this reply:
The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn, as they have been overcome by the newly amended claims.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala et al. (US 20200116558 A1), hereinafter Pacala, in view of Barker (US 20020180956 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pacala teaches:
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a shared imaging optic ([0169] “the separation between the micro-lens layer 1524 and the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 is equal to the sum of their focal lengths, such that light focused at the aperture array 1526 appears as collimated light at the output of the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 with each collimated bundle of rays exiting the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 with a different chief ray angle.”);
an array of light detectors ([0170] “Rx module 1540 includes an Rx-side bulk imaging optics module 1560 and sensor array 200.”);
an array of light emitters ([0167] “Emitters 1522 can be arranged in a one or two-dimensional array of transmitter channels”),
wherein each light emitter is configured to emit a light signal toward a respective region of a scene through the shared imaging optic ([0169] “the separation between the micro-lens layer 1524 and the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 is equal to the sum of their focal lengths, such that light focused at the aperture array 1526 appears as collimated light at the output of the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 with each collimated bundle of rays exiting the Tx-side bulk imaging optics module 1530 with a different chief ray angle. Accordingly, the light from each emitter is directed to a different field of view ahead of the device.”), and
wherein each light detector of the array of light detectors is configured to detect a reflection of one of the emitted light signals from the corresponding respective region of the scene ([0169] “LIDAR sensing channels 202 of Rx module 1540 can be arranged to match Tx-side micro-optics package 1520, with a LIDAR sensor channel 202 corresponding to each micro-optic transmitter channel 1525.”), and
an array of polarization filters positioned between the shared imaging optic and the array of light detectors, wherein each reflected light signal is received by a corresponding light detector within the array of light detectors via the shared imaging optic and a respective polarization filter in the array of polarization filters ([0127] “Polarization channels 414 can be created by using an optical polarization filter, such as a grating, instead of or in addition to an optical bandpass filter 142… The polarization filters may be applied to different surfaces of micro-optic sensor channel 200 in a similar manner to bandpass filters, or they may be fabricated as a metal grating directly within the metal layers of the photosensor(s) 152.”), and
[…]
Pacala does not explicitly teach:
wherein the polarization filters within the array are configured to prevent the emitted light signals from being reflected internally into the light detectors prior to the light signals exiting the LIDAR system through the shared imaging optic.
Barker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that polarization filters can be used to mitigate stray light from internal reflections ([0040] “A polarizing filter 18 may also be used to reduce the intensity of stray reflections of a linearly polarized output beam E1 from internal optical surfaces.”). Thus, Pacala, in combination with Barker teaches the limitation:
wherein the polarization filters within the array are configured to prevent the emitted light signals from being reflected internally into the light detectors prior to the light signals exiting the LIDAR system through the shared imaging optic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged the polarizing filters of the lidar system of Pacala to mitigate stray light from internal reflections in order to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Pacala in view Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
further comprising an array of optical elements positioned between the array of polarization filters and the shared imaging optic, wherein each optical element in the array of optical elements is configured to modify one of the respective light signals based on at least one aspect of the scene (Pacala: [0106-113] “1.1. Sensor Channel Examples… aperture layer… optical lens layer… optical filter layer…”).
Regarding claim 5, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, and further teach:
wherein the array of optical elements comprises one or more filters (Pacala: [0110] “In some embodiments, sensor channel 100 includes an optical filter layer 140 including an optical filter 142. In some embodiments, optical filter layer 140 is disposed on a detector side of optical lens layer 130 (opposite the aperture side). Optical filter layer 140 can be configured to pass normally incident photons at a specific operating wavelength and passband. Optical filter layer 140 may contain any number of optical filters 142.”).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 5, as described above, and further teach:
wherein the one or more filters comprise polarization filters (Pacala: [0113] “optical filters may be fabricated within the metal layers of the photosensor (e.g., in the case of polarization channels described below).”).
Regarding claim 8, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 5, as described above, and further teach:
wherein the one or more filters comprise chromatic filters (Pacala: [0110] “Optical filter layer 140 can be configured to pass normally incident photons at a specific operating wavelength and passband.”).
Regarding claim 19, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, and further teach:
wherein the array of optical elements comprises a microlens array (Pacala: [0188] “FIG. 21 shows an example of per-channel micro-optics to correct for focal length of a bulk optic module that can be used in some embodiments.”).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 20 matches the scope of the lidar system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Kim Jooyoung et al. (US 20170293198 A1), hereinafter Kim Jooyoung.
Regarding claim 3, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the array of optical elements comprises a liquid- crystal array.
Kim Jooyoung, in the same field of endeavor, teaches liquid crystal based variable lens ([0005] “The camera may include an image sensor; and a variable lens that includes a liquid crystal layer and configured to alter light that is introduced into the image sensor based on an arrangement of liquid crystal molecules included in the liquid crystal layer. The arrangement of the liquid crystal molecules in the liquid crystal layer may depend on an applied voltage.”).
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 lens layer of Pacala in view of Barker with the liquid crystal lens of Kim Jooyoung to provide a variable focal length that can adapt to the surroundings of the system (Kim Jooyoung: [0145] “the variable lens 300 may be controlled to change the focal distance of the camera 200 based on detected surroundings of the vehicle, so as to provide a variable view of the surroundings that are appropriate for the situation.”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Van den Bossche et al. (US 20160200161 A1), hereinafter Van den Bossche.
Regarding claim 4, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the array of optical elements is telecentric.
Van den Bossche, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a telecentric arrangement with a lens array ([0178] “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the preferred design consists of a tandem of two lenses 1130, 1140 with approximately the same focal length f, in an image-space telecentric configuration (the configuration is optionally also object-space telecentric), a planar stack of mini-lens array 1150, a spectral filter 1160 and a CMOS detector 102.”).
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 lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker with the telecentric lens arrangement of Van den Bossche in order to optimize the alignment of the return light rays passing through subsequent optics ([0175] “These examples all result in radiation travelling a substantially equal length through the filter medium or in other words in that the incident radiation is substantially orthogonal to the filter surface, i.e. it is confined to an angle of incidence within a predetermined range around the normal of the filter surface, thus allowing in accurate filtering within a narrow bandwidth to e.g. filter the daylight, the sunlight and in order to for the spots to surpass the daylight.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Schindler et al. (DE 102016011340 A1), hereinafter Schindler.
Regarding claim 7, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 6, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein at least one of the polarization filters is tunable based on an expected polarization of light reflected from a target region of the scene.
Schindler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a variable polarization filter to dynamically mitigate interfering light reflecting from the target scene, thus teaching:
wherein at least one of the polarization filters is tunable based on an expected polarization of light reflected from a target region of the scene ([0017] “A polarization filter 17, comprising a liquid crystal or a quantity of liquid crystals, is positioned in front of the lidar system 12. The liquid crystals can be aligned in a specific direction by applying an electrical voltage.”; [0019] “Preferably, the filter polarization direction should be selected such that the interference reflection 40 detected by the optical sensor 14 is minimized.”).
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 lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker with the variable polarization filters of Schindler to reduce unwanted reflections from the target scene.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of DeAntonio et al. (US20140158870), hereinafter DeAntonio.
Regarding claim 9, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 8, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein at least one of the chromatic filters is tunable based on a wavelength of light of a transmitter of the LIDAR system.
DeAntonio, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein at least one of the chromatic filters is tunable based on a wavelength of light of a transmitter of the LIDAR system ([0003] “The tunable receiver preferably comprises a tunable filter, preferably an acousto-optical tunable filter. A wavelength of the tunable filter is preferably synchronized to a wavelength of the tunable light source.”).
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 lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker with the tunable filter of DeAntonio to reduce background noise (DeAntonio: [0015] “The present invention is a LIDAR system that preferably comprises components which together serve to reduce background noise and increase the level of detection.”).
Claim(s) 10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190281202 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 5, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the one or more filters comprise neutral-density filters.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the one or more filters comprise neutral-density filters ([0005] “the one or more filters can be a graduated neutral density filter.”).
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 lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker with the neutral-density filters of Chen to ensure appropriate detector exposure (Chen: [0001] “Images that are over exposed or under exposed require further processing and require additional processing overhead, which could potentially delay decisions to be taken by the self-driving vehicles. Therefore, for self-driving vehicles to operate as intended, it is critical that images captured from imaging devices have proper exposure.”).
Regarding claim 13, Pacala in view of Barker teaches the lidar system of claim 2, as described above, but fails to teach:
wherein the array of optical elements is tunable based on a desired optical characteristic.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the array of optical elements is tunable (Chen: [0006] “a controller can be configured to move the graduated neutral density filter along the axis to a position optimal for capturing images. The graduated neutral density filter can have a particular range of optical densities at the position optimal for capturing images.”) based on a desired optical characteristic. (Chen: [0033] “the method can include determining whether or not an image over exposed or under exposed. If the image is over exposed, the method increases optical density of the neutral density filters. If the image is under exposed, the method decreases optical density of the neutral density filters.”).
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 lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker with the neutral-density filters of Chen to ensure appropriate detector exposure (Chen: [0001] “Images that are over exposed or under exposed require further processing and require additional processing overhead, which could potentially delay decisions to be taken by the self-driving vehicles. Therefore, for self-driving vehicles to operate as intended, it is critical that images captured from imaging devices have proper exposure.”).
Regarding claim 14, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the desired optical characteristic is based on a geographical location of the LIDAR system or an orientation of a LIDAR system relative to one or more objects in the scene (Chen: [0080] “The GPS can be configured to determine a precise location of a self-driving vehicle for which the GPS is onboard. This precise location can be correlated with the sun's trajectory within a particular time of a day, within a particular day of a year to determine a particular setting for the neutral density filters.”).
Regarding claim 15, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the desired optical characteristic is based on a previous light detection by one or more of the light detectors (Chen: [0033] “the method can include determining whether or not an image over exposed or under exposed. If the image is over exposed, the method increases optical density of the neutral density filters. If the image is under exposed, the method decreases optical density of the neutral density filters.”).
Claim(s) 11-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen and Duelli et al. (US 10999524 B1), hereinafter Duelli.
Regarding claim 11, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the neutral-density filters is tunable (Chen: [0006] “a controller can be configured to move the graduated neutral density filter along the axis to a position optimal for capturing images. The graduated neutral density filter can have a particular range of optical densities at the position optimal for capturing images.”) […]
The combination fails to explicitly teach:
[…] based on a reflectivity of a target region of the scene.
Duelli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lidar system which detects retroreflective objects and adjusts an acquisition parameter, such as exposure time or pulse energy, to reduce the return signal for a subsequent measurement ((Col. 15, lines 20-24) “If retroreflective material is detected within the raw sensor data, however, then the process advances to box 340, where frames of raw sensor data are captured using the time-of-flight camera at reduced energy levels and for reduced exposure times.”).
It is well-known in the art that one option for adjusting the power of a return signal is the use of opacity filters, and thus that in the context of the lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen, the variable neutral-density filters of Chen would be an obvious choice for achieving the parameter adjustment of Duelli. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the acquisition parameter adjustment method of Duelli with the lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen to accurately measure retroreflective targets (Duelli: (Col. 2, lines 55-59) “… that is free from distortions or corruptions due to the retroreflectivity of any objects that are present within the field of view.”).
Regarding claim 12, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen and Duelli teaches the lidar system of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the neutral-density filters is tuned to have a predetermined transmittance in response to a determination that the target region of the scene contains a retroreflective object, wherein the predetermined transmittance is less than 50.0%.
Chen contemplates a range of transmittance values, including values below 50% ([0063] “the four neutral density filters can include a neutral density filter 308d with an optical density of 0.0 (a transmittance of 100%), a neutral density filter 308c with an optical density of 0.3 (a transmittance of 50%), a neutral density filter 308b with an optical density of 0.6 (a transmittance of 25%), and a neutral density filter 308a with an optical density of 0.9 (a transmittance of 12.5%). In general, from one neutral density filter to a next neutral density filter, the optical density can increase by a value of 0.3.”). The choice of transmittance value is a simple matter of optimization with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the previous light detection indicates that the scene contains a retroreflective object.
Duelli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lidar system which detects retroreflective objects and adjusts an acquisition parameter, such as exposure time or pulse energy, to reduce the return signal for a subsequent measurement ((Col. 15, lines 20-24) “If retroreflective material is detected within the raw sensor data, however, then the process advances to box 340, where frames of raw sensor data are captured using the time-of-flight camera at reduced energy levels and for reduced exposure times.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the retroreflector detection method of Duelli with the lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen to accurately measure retroreflective targets (Duelli: (Col. 2, lines 55-59) “… that is free from distortions or corruptions due to the retroreflectivity of any objects that are present within the field of view.”).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen and Pinkus et al. (US 10460429 B1), hereinafter Pinkus.
Regarding claim 17, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the previous light detection indicates that the scene contains an object in motion relative to a background of the scene.
Pinkus, in the related field of optical target detection, teaches adjusting a digital spatial filter based on object motion ((Col. 9, line 64 - Col. 10, line 4) “Real-time display of filters and tuning selected and modified during a given viewing session using the device 800 may be accomplished through any combination of retrieval of preset custom/default filters (Block 230), receipt of changed tactical scenes (Block 250), adjustment of distance to target (Block 260), and modification of filters through tuning (Blocks 270, 292, 294, 296).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that just as digital spatial filtering can benefit from adjustment based on target motion, so to can optical filtering, and thus to have modified the lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen with the filter adjustment of Pinkus.
Regarding claim 18, Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen teaches the lidar system of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the previous light detection indicates a relative distance between the array of light detectors and one or more portions of the scene.
Pinkus, in the related field of optical target detection, teaches adjusting a digital spatial filter based on object distance ((Col. 9, line 64 - Col. 10, line 4) “Real-time display of filters and tuning selected and modified during a given viewing session using the device 800 may be accomplished through any combination of retrieval of preset custom/default filters (Block 230), receipt of changed tactical scenes (Block 250), adjustment of distance to target (Block 260), and modification of filters through tuning (Blocks 270, 292, 294, 296).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that just as digital spatial filtering can benefit from adjustment based on target distance, so to can optical filtering, and thus to have modified the lidar system of Pacala in view of Barker and further in view of Chen with the filter adjustment of Pinkus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schneiter (US 5061062 A) teaches a variable focal length based on target distance.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645