Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/04/2025 regarding the rejections of Claims 1, 16, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miki (US 20190195991 A1).
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.
Claims 1-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail (US 20180048880 A1) in view of Wilmer (CN 110297225 A), further in view of Baturin (US 20200209411 A1), further in view of Miki (US 20190195991 A1).
Claim 1: Trail teaches a optical apparatus comprising:
a transmitter (Fig 3, illumination source 320) configured to:
project on a surface of an object, a first optical pattern having a first set of characteristics ([0040]),
and project on the surface of the object, a second optical pattern having a second set of characteristics that are different from the first set of characteristics ([0040]);
a receiver (Fig 3, imaging device 325) configured to:
receive a first reflected optical pattern representing a reflection of the first optical pattern from the surface of the object; generate, based on the first reflected optical pattern, first electrical signals representing a first 3D image […]; receive a second reflected optical pattern representing a reflection of the second optical pattern from the surface of the object; and generate based on the second reflected optical pattern, second electrical signals representing a second 3D image […] ([0046] - controller coordinates emission and detection times);
and one or more processors configured to:
receive the first electrical signals and the second electrical signals[…] ([0042]).
Trail does not teach a first 3D image having a low spatial resolution with a first noise level, a second 3D image with a second noise level that is worse than the first noise level, and adjust, based on the first electrical signals, the second electrical signals to determine third electrical-signals representing a modified second 3D image having the high spatial resolution with a third noise level that is better than the second noise level.
Wilmer teaches a laser radar system which generates multiple dot patterns which have different densities (Fig 3A and 3B, showing two different dot patterns and page 4 of attached PDF, boxed portion), and where the generation is done with a spatial light modulator, such as a liquid crystal device (pg. 6 diffuser).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use diffuser as taught by Wilmer to generate the multiple dot patterns of different densities as required by Trail because this allows for increased spatial resolution (Wilmer Pg. 4).
Neither Trail or Wilmer teach adjusting, based on the first electrical signals, the second electrical signals to determine third electrical-signals representing a modified second 3D image having the high spatial resolution with a third noise level that is better than the second noise level.
Baturin teaches an imager (title) which produces a first high resolution, low SNR image and a second low resolution, high SNR image and combines them into a "fused" image to maximize SNR ([0008]).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the “fused” image, as taught by Baturin, in the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified in view of Wilmer, because this allows for maximized SNR (Baturin [0008]), and thus a more useful image.
Trail, as modified, doesn’t teach, but Miki does teach wherein the first optical pattern and the second optical pattern have the same dot pattern but different densities for each dot in the dot pattern (Fig. 13 and [0272]-[0273] – dot pattern increases in size to create uniform light).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to been obvious to use the two patterns with the same dot pattern but different dot densities, as taught by Miki, in the system as taught by Trail, as modified, because, as Miki teaches, by having two light patterns, one with low intensity and one with high intensity, distance information of objects both close and far from the system can be accurately measured ([0022]-[0025]).
Claim 2: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmitter further comprises a diffuser configured to: form the first optical pattern as a first dot pattern; and form the second optical pattern as a second dot pattern (Wilmer pg. 4).
Claim 3: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics include a dot density of the first dot pattern and a dot density of the second dot pattern (Wilmer Figs 3A and 3B and pg. 4 – different densities),
wherein projecting the first optical pattern on the surface of the object further comprises projecting the first dot pattern on the surface, each dot of the first dot pattern having a first dot density (Wilmer Fig 3A, first dot pattern 30’),
wherein projecting the second optical pattern on the surface of the object further comprises projecting the second dot pattern on the surface, each dot of the second dot pattern having a second dot density (Wilmer Fig. 3B, second dot pattern 30”),
and wherein the first dot density is higher than the second dot density, such that the first reflected optical pattern provides a higher detection range and the second reflected optical pattern provides a higher resolution (Wilmer pg. 4 and Figs 3A and 3B, showing two different densities and pg. 4 – increasing spatial resolution).
Claim 4: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 2, wherein the diffuser is configured to form the first dot pattern and the second dot pattern at different time intervals, wherein receiving the first reflected optical pattern further comprises receiving the first reflected optical pattern during a first time interval, and wherein receiving the second reflected optical pattern further comprises receiving the second reflected optical pattern during a second time interval different from the first time interval (Trail [0046] - emitters triggered at different times and coordinated with imaging device).
Claim 5: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine first range information of the object based on the first electrical signals; determine second range information of the object based on the second electrical signals ([0044]).
But not to adjust the second range information based on the first range information.
However, Miki does teach a distance measuring apparatus which outputs two light patterns ([0082] – strong and weak luminous patterns) and calculates corrected distance information based on light received from the two light patterns ([0180]).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the distance correction, as taught by Miki, with the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified, because this helps mitigate any errors from either one of the light patterns.
Claim 6: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine first range information of the object based on the first electrical signals; determine second range information of the object based on the second electrical signals ([0044]).
But not to select, based on one or more selection criteria, one of the first range information or the second range information to determine the one or more characteristics of the object.
However, Miki does teach a distance measuring apparatus which outputs two light patterns ([0082] – strong and weak luminous patterns). In a situation where an object is a long distance away, the light reflected from the weak pattern doesn’t have sufficient intensity, so the light reflected from the strong pattern is used. Likewise, if the object is short distance away, the light reflected via the strong pattern becomes saturated, the light reflected from the weak pattern is used. This selection is done based on the saturation of the receiver. (Fig 4 and [0143]-[0144]).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the method of choosing one of two measurements based on saturation, as taught by Miki, with the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified, because this allows for distance to be accurately measured regardless of how close or far an object is (See Miki [0145]).
Claim 7: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more selection criteria comprise a sensitivity of the receiver, a saturation level of the receiver, or a dark current of the receiver (Miki Fig 4 and [0143]-[0144] – decision made based on saturation level).
Claim 8: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmitter further comprises: one or more first lasers configured to transmit optical signals for the first optical pattern; and one or more second lasers configured to transmit optical signals for the second optical pattern (Trail [0040]).
Claim 9: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more first lasers are configured to transmit the optical signals having a first wavelength, wherein the one or more second lasers are configured to transmit the optical signals having a second wavelength, and wherein the receiver further comprises: a first pixel array configured to receive the first reflected optical pattern having the first wavelength; and a second pixel array configured to receive the second reflected optical pattern having the second wavelength (Trail [0037] - a characteristic, such as wavelength, can be different between emitters)
Claim 10: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 8, wherein the receiver is configured to: receive the first reflected optical pattern during a first time interval; and receive the second reflected optical pattern during a second time interval (Trail [0046] - emitters triggered at different times).
Claim 16: Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 17: Trail, as modified, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first set of characteristics and the second set of characteristics include a dot density of a first dot pattern and a dot density of a second dot pattern (Wilmer Figs 3A and 3B and pg. 4 – different densities),
wherein projecting the first optical pattern on the surface of the object further comprises projecting the first dot pattern on the surface, each dot of the first dot pattern having a first dot density (Wilmer Fig 3A, first dot pattern 30’),
wherein projecting the second optical pattern on the surface of the object further comprises projecting the second dot pattern on the surface, each dot of the second dot pattern having a second dot density (Wilmer Fig. 3B, second dot pattern 30”),
and wherein the first dot density is higher than the second dot density, such that the first reflected optical pattern provides a higher detection range and the second reflected optical pattern provides a higher resolution (Wilmer pg. 4 and Figs 3A and 3B, showing two different densities and pg. 4 – increasing spatial resolution).
Claim 18: Trail, as modified,, as modified in view of Wilmer, teaches the method of claim 17,
wherein projecting the first dot pattern and projecting the second dot pattern further comprises forming, by a diffuser, the first dot pattern and the second dot pattern at different time intervals (Wilmer pg. 6 – spatial light modulator).
wherein receiving the first reflected optical pattern further comprises receiving the first reflected optical pattern during a first time interval, and wherein receiving the second reflected optical pattern further comprises receiving the second reflected optical pattern during a second time interval different from the first time interval (Trail [0046] - emitters triggered at different times).
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail, as modified in view of Wilmer and Baturin, in view or Miki in view of Rhodes (US 20060157806 A1).
Claim 11: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, but not wherein the receiver further comprises: a germanium-on-silicon-based pixel array configured to receive the first reflected optical pattern and the second reflected optical pattern, wherein the germanium-on-silicon-based pixel array is formed on a silicon substrate.
Rhodes teaches an image sensor which comprises a silicon-germanium alloy layer ([0027] and Fig 2) and a silicon layer doped for electronic components ([0023] and Fig 2).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the image sensor, as taught by Rhodes, in the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified, because, as Rhodes teaches, this improves crosstalk (Rhodes [0023]).
Claim 12: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 11, wherein the receiver further comprises silicon-based circuitry formed on the silicon substrate, the silicon-based circuitry configured to generate the first electrical signals and the second electrical signals (Rhodes [0023] and Fig 2).
Claim 13: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 11, further comprising control circuitry formed on a silicon carrier substrate configured to control the transmitter or the receiver, wherein the silicon carrier substrate having the control circuitry is bonded to the silicon substrate having the germanium-on-silicon-based pixel array (Rhodes [0023] and Fig 2).
Claim 20: Trail teaches a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device comprising:
a transmitter (Fig 3, illumination source 320) configured to:
project on a surface of an object, a first optical pattern […] ([0040]);
and project on the surface of the object, a second optical pattern […] ([0040]);
a […] receiver (Fig 3, imaging device 325) configured to:
receive a first reflected optical pattern representing a reflection of the first optical pattern from the surface of the object; generate, based on the first reflected optical pattern first electrical signals representing a first 3D image […]; receive a second reflected optical pattern representing a reflection of the second optical pattern from the surface of the object; and generate based on the second optical pattern, second electrical signals representing a second 3D image […] ([0046] - controller coordinates emission and detection times).
Trail does not teach a first 3D image having a low spatial resolution with a first noise level, a second 3D image with a second noise level that is worse than the first noise level, and adjust, based on the first electrical signals, the second electrical signals to determine third electrical-signals representing a modified second 3D image having the high spatial resolution with a third noise level that is better than the second noise level.
Wilmer teaches a laser radar system which generates multiple dot patterns which have different densities (Fig 3A and 3B, showing two different dot patterns and page 4 of attached PDF, boxed portion), and where the generation is done with a spatial light modulator, such as a liquid crystal device (pg. 6 diffuser).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use diffuser as taught by Wilmer to generate the multiple dot patterns of different densities as required by Trail because this allows for increased spatial resolution (Wilmer Pg. 4).
Neither Trail or Wilmer teach adjusting, based on the first electrical signals, the second electrical signals to determine third electrical signals representing a modified second 3D image having the high spatial resolution with a third noise level that is better than the second noise level.
Baturin teaches an imager (title) which produces a first high resolution, low SNR image and a second low resolution, high SNR image and combines them into a "fused" image to maximize SNR ([0008]).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the “fused” image, as taught by Baturin, in the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified in view of Wilmer, because this allows for maximized SNR (Baturin [0008]), and thus a more useful image.
Trail, as modified, doesn’t teach, but Miki does teach wherein the first optical pattern and the second optical pattern have the same dot pattern but different densities for each dot in the dot pattern (Fig. 13 and [0272]-[0273] – dot pattern increases in size to create uniform light).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to been obvious to use the two patterns with the same dot pattern but different dot densities, as taught by Miki, in the system as taught by Trail, as modified, because, as Miki teaches, by having two light patterns, one with low intensity and one with high intensity, distance information of objects both close and far from the system can be accurately measured ([0022]-[0025]).
None of Trail, Wilmer, or Baturin teach a germanium-based receiver formed on a silicon substrate, the germanium- based receiver or silicon-based control circuitry configured to control the transmitter or the germanium-based receiver.
Rhodes teaches an image sensor which comprises a silicon-germanium alloy layer ([0027] and Fig 2) and a silicon layer doped for electronic components ([0023] and Fig 2).
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use the image sensor, as taught by Rhodes, in the optical apparatus as taught by Trail as modified in view of Wilmer because, as Rhodes teaches, this improves crosstalk (Rhodes [0023]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail, as modified in view of Wilmer, Baturin, and Miki, in view of Robbins (US 10175489 B1).
Claim 14: Trail, as modified, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 1, but not further comprises a scanner configured to scan optical signals transmitted by the transmitter over time to obtain a representation of a three-dimensional environment.
Robbins teaches a optical system which uses MEMS scanners to direct a structured light pattern onto a scene (Col 20, lines 63-65 – structured light and Col 12, lines 27-48 – describing MEMS scanners scanning in 3D).
It would have been obvious to use the MEMS scanners, as taught by Robbins, with the optical apparatus as taught by Trail, as modified, because scanning allows for multiple parts of the scene to be imaged without moving the whole optical apparatus.
Claim 15: Trail, as modified, as modified in view of Robbins, teaches the optical apparatus of claim 14, wherein the scanner comprises a MEMS scanner (Robbins Col 12, lines 27-48 – describing MEMS scanners scanning in 3D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645