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 filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Klemme does not teach scanning vertical rows of a horizontal slice.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although applicant is correct that Klemme does not teach this limitation, Campbell (cited in non-final rejection) does teach this. In [0028] of the specification, this scanning is described as scanning vertically down a horizontal slice of a FOV. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is simply scanning down a FOV, as it would be obvious that, as the scanning light moves down a FOV, it would pass through different horizontal slices. Campbell teaches scanning down in a zig zag pattern in Fig. 5. Thus, this 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemme (US 20230012158 A1) in view of Campbell (US 20180284237 A1).
Claim 1: Klemme teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
a first transmitter subsystem (Fig. 6, output 1 602 and [0038]) comprising:
a first light source configured to emit first light beams during a first optical sensing procedure associated with a first field-of-view (FOV) and a first resolution (Fig. 7, baseline field of view FOV 1 702 and [0038]);
a second transmitter subsystem comprising (Fig. 6, output 2 and [0039]):
a second light source configured to emit second light beams during a second optical sensing procedure associated with a second FOV and a second resolution finer than the first resolution (Fig. 7, area of interest FOV 2 704 and [0039]);
at least one photodetector configured to detect light returned from the first FOV during the first optical sensing procedure and from the second FOV during the second optical sensing procedure (Fig. 1, detector 108 and Fig. 4 - detail of detector);
and a signal processor coupled to the at least one photodetector (Fig 4, processing circuit 410) and configured to:
generate a first point cloud of the first FOV with the first resolution based on the light returned from the first FOV during the first optical sensing procedure (Fig. 9, detection channel 1 904 and [0048]);
and generate a second point cloud of the second FOV with the second resolution based on the light returned from the second FOV during the second optical sensing procedure ((Fig. 9, detection channel 2 906 and [0048] and [0038] - generate point cloud).
Klemme does not teach, but Campbell does teach a first scanner configured to: steer, at a first time, the second light beams in a pattern that sequentially moves down first vertical rows located in a first horizontal slice of the second FOV until an entire vertical length of the first horizontal slice is scanned; and steer, at second time different than the first time, the second light beams in the pattern that sequentially moves down second vertical rows located in a second horizontal slice of the second FOV until an entire vertical length of the second horizontal slice is scanned (Fig. 5, zig zag pattern, and 3A, mirrors 206 and 204 – it would be obvious that scanning down a FOV, as Campbell teaches, would move through different horizontal slices).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the scanning, as taught by Campbell, with the LiDAR system as taught by Klemme, because scanning vertically down in a zig zag pattern is a well known method in the art, and would ensure that no part of the FOV is missed.
Claim 2: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1, further comprising: a second scanner shared by the first transmitter subsystem and the second transmitter subsystem (Fig. 3A and [0031]) and configured to: steer the first light beams in a horizontal direction towards the first FOV; and steer the second light beams in the horizontal direction towards the second FOV, wherein the first scanner is a mechanical scanner (Campbell Fig. 5, zig zag pattern, and 3A, mirrors 206 and 204 – and [0097] – pivotable scan mirror is mechanical).
Claim 8: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the at least one photodetector comprises a one- dimensional (iD) detector array or a two-dimensional (2D) detector array (Klemme [0033] - detector grids).
Claim 9: : Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 8, wherein the 1D detector array comprises sub-pixelization (Klemme [0040] - each 1D sweep acts as sub-pixelation). (See spec [0029])
Claim 10: : Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the first optical sensing procedure and the second optical sensing procedure are performed concurrently (Klemme [0020] - interleaving scan patterns).
Claim 11: Klemme teaches a transmitter for a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
a first transmitter subsystem (Fig. 6, output 1 602 and [0038]) comprising:
a first light source configured to emit first light beams during a first optical sensing procedure associated with a first field-of-view (FOV) and a first resolution (Fig. 7, baseline field of view FOV 1 702 and [0038]);
a second transmitter subsystem comprising (Fig. 6, output 2 and [0039]):
a second light source configured to emit second light beams during a second optical sensing procedure associated with a second FOV and a second resolution finer than the first resolution (Fig. 7, area of interest FOV 2 704 and [0039]).
Klemme does not teach, but Campbell does teach a first scanner configured to: steer, at a first time, the second light beams in a pattern that sequentially moves down first vertical rows located in a first horizontal slice of the second FOV until an entire vertical length of the first horizontal slice is scanned and steer, at second time different than the first time, the second light beams in the pattern that sequentially moves down second vertical rows located in a second horizontal slice of the second FOV until an entire vertical length of the second horizontal slice is scanned (Fig. 5, zig zag pattern, and 3A, mirrors 206 and 204 – it would be obvious that scanning down a FOV, as Campbell teaches, would move through different horizontal slices).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the scanning, as taught by Campbell, with the LiDAR system as taught by Klemme, because scanning vertically down in a zig zag pattern is a well known method in the art, and would ensure that no part of the FOV is missed.
Claim 12: Klemme, as modified in view of Cambpell, teaches the transmitter of claim 11, further comprising: a first scanner shared by the first transmitter subsystem and the second transmitter subsystem (Fig. 3A and [0031]) and configured to: steer the first light beams in a first direction towards the first FOV; and steer the second light beams in the first direction towards the second FOV, wherein the first scanner comprises a mechanical scanner (Campbell Fig. 5, zig zag pattern, and 3A, mirrors 206 and 204).
Claim 16: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the transmitter of claim 11, wherein the first optical sensing procedure and the second optical sensing procedure are performed concurrently (Klemme [0020] - interleaving scan patterns).
Claim 17: As Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above.
Claim 18: As Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 2, see rejection above.
Claims 3-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemme (US 20230012158 A1) in view of Campbell (US 20180284237 A1) in view of Kirillov (US 20200150209 A1).
Claim 3: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the LiDAR system of Claim 2, but not wherein the first transmitter subsystem comprises a first micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) subsystem, and the second transmitter subsystem comprises a second MEMS subsystem.
Campbell teaches a laser sensing system which uses two emitters (Fig 3B, sensor collimators 254a and 254b), each paired with a scan mirror (Fig. 3B, scan mirrors 262a and 262b) which then both direct light towards the same scanning polygon mirror (Fig. 3B, polygon mirror 270).
It would have been obvious to use the setup wherein each emitter is paired to a separate scanning mirror, as taught by Campbell, with the LiDAR system as taught by Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, because this allows for more precise control over the direction of the scanned light beams.
Neither Klemme or Campbell teach wherein the first transmitter subsystem a first micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) subsystem, and the second transmitter subsystem comprises a second MEMS subsystem.
Kirillov teaches a LiDAR system which can either have a 1D or 2D MEMS scanning mirror (Fig 1, MEMS mirror 114) or a flash lidar system with a 1D or 2D array of emitting pixels ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to use the MEMS or flash system, as taught by Kirillov, with the Lidar system as taught by Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell (specifically in place of the scan mirrors 262a and 262b as taught by Campbell), because both flash and MEMS mirrors are well known in the art and would yield predictable results.
Claim 4: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 3, wherein: the first transmitter subsystem comprises a third scanner configured to steer the first light beams towards the first FOV in a vertical direction (Campbell Fig. 3B, scan mirrors 262a and 262b – taken with Kirillov’s MEMS mirror 114),
Claim 5: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 4, wherein the first MEMS subsystem and the second MEMS subsystem each comprise a one-dimensional (iD) MEMS scanner or a two-dimensional (2D) MEMS scanner (Kirillov [0040] – 1D MEMS).
Claim 6: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 3, but not wherein the first flash subsystem comprises a one- dimensional (iD) flash transmitter and the second flash subsystem comprises a two-dimensional (2D) flash transmitter.
However, Kirillov does teach a flash system which has either a 1D or 2D array of light emitting pixels ([0040] lines 19-25).
It would have been obvious to use the 1D or 2D flash pixel array, as taught by Kirillov, in place of the first and second light sources, taught by Klemme, because first, flash LiDAR in general is well known in the art which would yield predictable results and as Kirillov teaches, flash LiDAR is interchangeable with a MEMS subsystem ([0040] lines 15-25). Secondly there are a limited number of choices for a flash LiDAR array (a single emitter, a 1D array, or a 2D array). Thus, it would be obvious to try combinations of these to arrive at the claimed invention, as there are only nine possible combinations.
Claim 7: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 3, wherein the first MEMS subsystem comprises a one- dimensional (iD) MEMS transmitter and the second MEMS subsystem comprises a 1DMEMS transmitter or a two-dimensional (2D) MEMS transmitter (Kirillov [0040] – 1D MEMS).
Claim 13: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, teaches the transmitter of claim 12, but not wherein the first transmitter subsystem comprises a first micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) subsystem, and the second transmitter subsystem comprises a second MEMS subsystem.
Campbell teaches a laser sensing system which uses two emitters (Fig 3B, sensor collimators 254a and 254b), each paired with a scan mirror (Fig. 3B, scan mirrors 262a and 262b) which then both direct light towards the same scanning polygon mirror (Fig. 3B, polygon mirror 270).
It would have been obvious to use the setup wherein each emitter is paired to a separate scanning mirror, as taught by Campbell, with the LiDAR system as taught by Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell, because this allows for more precise control over the direction of the scanned light beams.
Neither Klemme or Campbell teach wherein the first transmitter subsystem comprises a first micro-electrical-mechanical system (MEMS) subsystem, and the second transmitter subsystem comprises a second MEMS subsystem.
Kirillov teaches a LiDAR system which can either have a 1D or 2D MEMS scanning mirror (Fig 1, MEMS mirror 114) or a flash lidar system with a 1D or 2D array of emitting pixels ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to use the MEMS or flash system, as taught by Kirillov, with the Lidar system as taught by Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell (specifically in place of the scan mirrors 262a and 262b as taught by Campbell), because both flash and MEMS mirrors are well known in the art and would yield predictable results.
Claim 14: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the transmitter of Claim 13, wherein: the first transmitter subsystem comprises a third scanner configured to steer the first light beams towards the first FOV in a vertical direction (Campbell Fig. 3B, scan mirrors 262a and 262b – taken with Kirillov’s MEMS mirror 114),
Claim 15: Klemme, as modified in view of Campbell and further in view of Kirillov, teaches the transmitter of claim 13, wherein the first MEMS subsystem and the second MEMS subsystem each comprise a one-dimensional (iD) MEMS scanner or a two-dimensional (2D) MEMS scanner (Kirillov [0040] – 1D MEMS).
Claim 19: As Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 3, see rejection above.
Claim 20: As Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 4, see rejection above.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights