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
Claims 1-26 and 28 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 07 May 2026, materially changes the scope of the claims. Specifically:
Amended independent claim 1 introduces a second, narrower field of illumination and/or field of view for a second, farther distance sub-range provided by deactivating peripheral emitter units or detector pixels. The amendment places under a single independent claim scope the closer/farther and wider/narrower relationship of original claim 7, the peripheral emitter array subject matter of original claim 8, and the peripheral detector array subject matter of original claim 10. Original claims 8 and 10 were separate dependent branches, and no original pending claim expressly recited or required both branches in a single claim. Thus, amended claim 1 presents a new independent claim scope. Claims 2-14 incorporate new scope by virtue of dependency.
Claims 15-26 introduce new limitations not previously consider.
Claim 28 is newly introduced.
Accordingly, the present grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, “a curved and/or flexible substrate” should perhaps read --a curved substrate, a flexible substrate, or a substrate that is both curved and flexible--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites one or more control circuits configured to “selectively operate different subsets of the emitter units and/or different subsets of the detector pixels” such that “a field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a field of view of the detector pixels” is varied, and further recites providing “a first field of illumination and/or a first field of view” and “a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view,” wherein the “second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view” is provided by deactivating “a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels” located at peripheral regions.
The claim contains several independently selectable alternatives that are not expressly correlated with one another. As a result, claim 1 has multiple reasonable interpretations with materially different scopes. For example, claim 1 can reasonably be read to require:
(i) emitter unit operation that varies the field of illumination;
(ii) detector pixel operation that varies the field of view; or
(iii) both emitter unit operation and detector pixel operation.
However, because the alternatives are not expressly linked, claim 1 can also reasonably be read to encompass mismatched or orthogonal combinations, including:
(i) operation of only the different subsets of detector pixels while providing a second, narrower field of illumination;
(ii) operation of only the different subsets of emitter units while providing a second, narrower field of view;
(iii) a second, narrower field of illumination without a corresponding first field of illumination to which “narrower” is compared; and
(iv) a second, narrower field of view without a corresponding first field of view to which “narrower” is compared.
Accordingly, it is unclear which control operation or deactivation operation is required to satisfy each claimed field-of-illumination or field-of-view result.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because the phrase “the respective array” does not clearly identify which array is being referenced. Claim 1 recites both an emitter array comprising emitter units and a detector array comprising detector pixels, and further recites deactivating “a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array.” As the claim recites “emitter units or detector pixels” in the alternative, and then refers to the singular phrase “the respective array,” it is unclear whether “the respective array” refers to:
(i) the emitter array;
(ii) the detector array; or,
(iii) both the emitter array and the detector array.
Claim 1 further recites “the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels.” As a result, when the claim is read to require both a second, narrower field of illumination and a second, narrower field of view, it is unclear how both field-of-illumination and field-of-view result are achieved when “deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels” is presented in the alternative. That is, it is unclear how deactivating emitter units would correspond to narrowing the field of view. Similarly, it is unclear how the alternative of deactivating detector pixels would correspond to narrowing the field of illumination.
Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending the claim to expressly correlate the emitter-side limitations with the field-of-illumination limitations and the detector-side limitations with the field-of-view limitations. For example, the claim may be amended to recite the one or more control circuits configured to perform at least one operation selected form the group consisting of:
(i) selectively operating different subsets of the emitter units to vary the field of illumination, including providing a first field of illumination for the first strobe window and a second, narrower field of illumination for the second strobe window by deactivating peripheral emitter units; and
(ii) selectively operating different subsets of the detector pixels to vary the field of view, including providing a first field of view for the first strobe window and a second, narrower field of view for the second strobe window by deactivating peripheral detector pixels.
Claims 15 and 23 are similarly analyzed as claim 1 and rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites that the one or more control circuits comprise an emitter control circuit configured to operate first and second subsets of emitter units to provide first and second fields of illumination, “and/or” a detector control circuit configured to operate first and second subsets of detector pixels to provide first and second fields of view. The use of “and/or” in claim 2 creates uncertainty as to whether claim 2 requires only the emitter control circuit, only the detector control circuit, or both control circuits. Claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 2, require a “detector control circuit,” while claims 5 and 6, which also depend from claim 2, require emitter-side operation and an “emitter control circuit.” Because claim 2 permits either the emitter control branch or the detector control branch, it is unclear whether the dependent claims are intended to narrow claim 2 to a selected branch, or whether claim 2 itself is intended to require both branches when later dependent limitations are considered. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-6 are unclear.
Claim 2 further recites “first and second strobe windows.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first strobe window” and “a second strobe window” of claim 1, or to introduce another set of strobe windows.
Claim 2 further recites “first and second sub-ranges of a distance range.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first distance sub-range” and “a second distance sub-range” of claim 1, or to introduce another set of distance sub-ranges.
Claim 2 further recites “a first field of illumination” and “a second field of illumination.” It is unclear whether the limitations are directed towards “a first field of illumination” and “a second, narrower field of illumination” of claim 1, or to introduce another set of fields of illumination.
Claim 2 further recites “a first field of view” and “a second field of view.” It is unclear whether the limitations are directed towards “a first field of view” and “a second, narrower field of view” of claim 1, or to introduce another set of fields of view.
Claim 4 recites “the respective strobe signals.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards strobe signals corresponding to the “respective strobe windows” of claim 1, claim 2, or to introduce another set of strobe signals.
Claim 6 recites “the first subset of the emitters” and “the second subset of the emitters.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards the “first subset of the emitter units” and the “second subset of the emitter units” of claim 2, or to introduce another set of emitters.
Claim 7 recites that “the first field of illumination and/or the first field of view is wider than the second field of illumination and/or the second field of view.” The limitation has multiple reasonable interpretations, including that the first field of illumination is wider than the second field of illumination, that the first field of view is wider than the second field of view, or both. Those interpretations are technically consistent. However, the limitation may also be read to require a comparison between different types of fields, such as the first field of illumination being wider than the second field of view, or the first field of view being wider than the second field of illumination. The claim does not clearly state whether the width comparison must be made between corresponding field types, or whether cross comparisons between the emitter-side field of illumination and the detector-side field of view are within the scope. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 7 are unclear.
Claim 13 recites that the one or more control circuits are configured to provide “the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or the field of view of the detector pixels that varies” in a current image frame based on features indicated by detection signals from a preceding image frame. Because claim 13 depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 1, and because claim 1 does not clearly correlate emitter side operation with field of illumination variation and detector side operation with field of view variation, it is unclear which field is varied in the current image frame. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and recites that, in the preceding image frame, the one or more control circuits are configured to provide “the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or the field of view of the detector pixels that is static” for the respective sub-ranges of the distance range. Claim 13 recites current-frame variation of “the field of illumination and/or the field of view,” and claim 14 independently recites preceding frame static operation of “the field of illumination and/or the field of view.” Because the “and/or” selections in claims 13 and 14 are not expressly tied together, it is unclear whether claim 14 requires the same field that varies in the current image frame to have been static in the preceding image frame. For example, claim 13 may be read to require current frame variation of the field of illumination only, while claim 14 may be read to require preceding frame static operation of the field of view only. Conversely, claim 13 may be read to require current frame variation of the field of view only, while claim 14 may be read to require preceding frame static operation of the field of illumination only. The claim does not clearly state whether such mismatched current frame / preceding frame selections are within the scope. Accordingly, claim 14 is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “first and second strobe windows.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first strobe window” and “a second strobe window” of claim 15, or to introduce another set of strobe windows.
Claim 20 recites “first and second strobe windows.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first strobe window” and “a second strobe window” of claim 15, or to introduce another set of strobe windows.
Claim 22 recites “the first subset of the emitters” and “the second subset of the emitters.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards the “first subset of the emitter units” and the “second subset of the emitter units” of claim 20, or to introduce another set of emitters.
Claim 24 recites two method branches: one in which respective emitter control signals operate first and second subsets of emitter units to provide first and second fields of illumination, and another in which respective strobe signals operate first and second subsets of detector pixels to provide first and second fields of view. These branches are connected by “and/or.” The claim remains unclear because the “and/or” language does not expressly indicate whether the method requires the emitter control branch, the detector control branch, or both, and because claims 25 and 26 depend from claim 24 and separately require detector-side and emitter-side operations. The claim therefore does not clearly indicate whether the dependent claims are selecting one branch from claim 24 or whether claim 24 itself requires both branches when read together with the dependent claims. Accordingly, claim 24 is indefinite.
Claim 24 further recites “first and second strobe windows.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first strobe window” and “a second strobe window” of claim 23, or to introduce another set of strobe windows.
Claim 24 further recites “first and second sub-ranges of the distance range.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards “a first distance sub-range” and “a second, farther distance sub-range” of claim 23, or to introduce another set of distance sub-ranges.
Claim 28 recites that the one or more control circuits selectively operate different subsets of the emitter units and/or different subsets of the detector pixels such that “at least one of an emission power level of the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a detection sensitivity level of a field of view of the detector pixels” is varied based on distance sub-ranges corresponding to the respective strobe windows. The phrase “at least one of … and/or …” is unclear because it uses overlapping alternative formulations. The phrase “at least one of” already indicates one or more listed alternatives, while “and/or” also indicates one or more listed alternatives. Therefore, the limitation creates uncertainty as to the intended scope.
Furthermore, Claim 28 is unclear for a branch correlation ambiguity. The claim can reasonably be read to require emitter unit subset operation that varies an emission power level, detector pixel subset operation that varies a detection sensitivity level, or both. Those interpretations are technically coherent. However, because the alternatives are not expressly linked, the claim can also be read to encompass mismatched combinations, such as selectively operating only detector pixels while varying an emission power level of the field of illumination, or selectively operating only emitter units while varying a detection sensitivity level of the field of view. Accordingly, claim 28 is indefinite because the metes and bounds are unclear as to which selectively operated structure is required to vary which operating parameter.
Claims 2-14 and 28 are further rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
Claims 16-22 are further rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 15.
Claims 24-26 are further rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1-2, 7, 10-12, 15-17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grauer (US 20180203122 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grauer discloses a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), comprising:
an emitter array comprising a plurality of emitter units (Fig. 1, illuminator 110, as further detailed in Fig. 3A, emitter array 113; ¶¶ 44-45) operable to emit optical signals (Fig. 9A, signals 1151, 1152, …,115N);
a detector array comprising a plurality of detector pixels (Fig. 1, detector 120, as further detailed in Fig. 10A, plurality of detector pixels) operable to detect light for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals (Fig. 9A, strobe windows 1351, 1352, …,135N between signals 1151, 1152, …,115N; Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 64-66 & 79, start time offset of each strobe window from τ through Xτ corresponding to detector pixels ROW 1 through ROW M, respectively); and
one or more control circuits configured to selectively operate different subsets of the emitter units and/or different subsets of the detector pixels (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 40 & 43, processing unit 130 gated imaging control of detector 120) such that a field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a field of view of the detector pixels is varied based on the respective strobe windows (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 64-68 & 79, each row of detector array respectively activated with respect to strobe window start time offsets τ through Xτ, associated with different field of view depth slices Fig. 1, 111), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, first detector exposure/strobe window 1351 associated with a first delay/traveling time and corresponding first specified range/depth range; Fig. 10A, ROW 1 activated with a first delay; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79) and
a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, second detector exposure/strobe window 1352 associated with a second delay/traveling time and corresponding second specified range/depth range farther than the first; Fig. 10A, ROW 2 activated with a different delay to provide a different time-gated depth slice; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79), wherein
the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 34, 38, 46 & 79, first strobe window with offset time τ associated with closer range gate than and second strobe window with offset time 2τ, where the more delayed second strobe window, corresponding to farther range, has wider FOV as compared to the closer range slice of the first strobe window as shown in Fig. 1) is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array (Fig. 10A, ROW 1 positioned at peripheral region deactivated, ROW 2 positioned in central region activated; ¶¶ 80-84).
Regarding claim 2, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows (Fig. 9A, first and second strobe windows 1351, 1352) corresponding to different first and second sub-ranges of a distance range, respectively (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 34, 38, 66 & 79, start time offset of first and second strobe windows τ and 2τ corresponding to their respective first and second sub-range slices; see Fig. 1, varying field of view depth slices 111), and wherein the one or more control circuits comprises: an emitter control circuit configured to operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination corresponding to the first strobe window, and to operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination, different than the first field of illumination, corresponding to the second strobe window; and/or a detector control circuit (Fig. 1, processing unit 130; ¶¶ 40 & 43; Fig. 8, pixel level control circuits; ¶¶ 64 & 79) configured to operate a first subset of the detector pixels to provide a first field of view during the first strobe window, and to operate a second subset of the detector pixels to provide a second field of view, different than the first field of view, during the second strobe window (Fig. 10A & ¶ 64-68 & 79, first pixel subset of ROW 1 associated with first field of view range-gated by first strobe window with offset time τ and second pixel subset of ROW 2 associated with second field of view range-gated by second strobe window with offset time 2τ).
Regarding claim 7, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 2, and further discloses: the first strobe window corresponds to closer distance sub-ranges of the distance range than the second strobe window (Fig. 9A & ¶ 66, first strobe window 1351 associated with shorter time delay than second strobe window 1352, corresponding to a closer range slice window per range/time relationship of ¶¶ 34 & 38); and the first field of illumination and/or the first field of view is wider than the second field of illumination and/or the second field of view (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 34, 38, 46 & 79, first strobe window with offset time τ associated with closer range gate than and second strobe window with offset time 2τ, where the more delayed second strobe window, corresponding to farther range, has wider FOV as compared to the closer range slice of the first strobe window as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 7, and further discloses: wherein the first subset of the detector pixels comprises one or more of the detector pixels that are positioned at a peripheral region of the detector array, and the second subset of the detector pixels comprises one or more of the detector pixels that are positioned at a central region of the detector array (Fig. 10A, ROW 1 positioned at peripheral region, as compared to ROW 2 positioned in central region).
Regarding claim 11, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the emitter array comprises the emitter units on a curved (¶ 44, part of a die that is curved) and/or flexible substrate, and wherein the different subsets of the emitter units are operable to provide the field of illumination without one or more lens elements (¶ 44, optical elements, such as lenses, not required).
Regarding claim 12, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the respective strobe windows correspond to respective acquisition subframes of the detector pixels (Fig. 10A & ¶ 79, acquisition subframes ROW 1 through ROW M of the detector pixels), wherein each acquisition subframe comprises data collected for a respective distance sub-range of a distance range, and wherein an image frame comprises the respective acquisition subframes for each of the distance sub-ranges of the distance range (¶¶ 63-64, 66, 68 & 79, gated image from acquisition of all pixel rows of Fig. 10A, where each row is associated with a different sub-ranges of the imaged scene; Fig. 1, sub-range patterns 111).
Regarding claim 15, Grauer discloses a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), comprising: at least one control circuit (Fig. 1, processing unit 130; ¶¶ 40 & 43, control of detector 120) configured to output respective emitter control signals to operate emitter units of an emitter array (Fig. 1, illuminator 110; ¶ 44, “array of emitters”; Fig. 9A, emitter signals 1151, 1152, …,115N) and/or respective strobe signals to operate detector pixels of a detector array (Fig. 10A & ¶ 79, strobe signals τ through Xτ associated with detector pixels ROW 1 through ROW M, respectively) such that a field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a field of view of the detector pixels varies for respective sub-ranges of a distance range imaged by the LIDAR system (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 63-64, 66, 68 & 79, each row of detector array activated τ through Xτ, corresponding to different field of view depth slices; Fig. 1, sub-range patterns 111), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, first detector exposure/strobe window 1351 associated with a first delay/traveling time and corresponding first specified range/depth range; Fig. 10A, ROW 1 activated with a first delay; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79) and
a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, second detector exposure/strobe window 1352 associated with a second delay/traveling time and corresponding second specified range/depth range farther than the first; Fig. 10A, ROW 2 activated with a different delay to provide a different time-gated depth slice; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79), wherein
the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 34, 38, 46 & 79, first strobe window with offset time τ associated with closer range gate than and second strobe window with offset time 2τ, where the more delayed second strobe window, corresponding to farther range, has wider FOV as compared to the closer range slice of the first strobe window as shown in Fig. 1) is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array (Fig. 10A, ROW 1 positioned at peripheral region deactivated, ROW 2 positioned in central region activated; ¶¶ 80-84).
Regarding claim 16, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 15, and further discloses: wherein the detector pixels are operable to detect light for respective strobe windows between respective emitter control signals (Fig. 9A, strobe windows 1351, 1352, …,135N between pulses of the emitter signals 1151, 1152, …,115N) responsive to the respective strobe signals (¶¶ 63-64, 66, 68 & 79, strobe signals τ through Xτ associated with pixel row activation of corresponding detection strobe windows 135 of Fig. 9A), wherein the respective strobe windows correspond to the respective sub-ranges of the distance range (¶¶ 34, 36 & 66, each strobe window 135 corresponding to specific time-gated sub-range intervals).
Regarding claim 17, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 16, and further discloses: wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows (Fig. 9A, first and second strobe windows 1351, 1352), and wherein the respective strobe signals operate a first subset of the detector pixels to detect the light over a first field of view during the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the detector pixels to detect light over a second field of view, different than the first field of view, during the second strobe window (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 64-66 & 79, strobe signal τ operates activation timing of first pixel subset ROW 1 associated with first field of view range-gated by first strobe window 1351, and strobe signal 2τ operates activation timing of second pixel subset ROW 2 associated with second field of view range-gated by second strobe window 1352).
Regarding claim 23, Grauer discloses a method of operating a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), the method comprising: generating respective emitter control signals to operate different subsets of emitter units of an emitter array to emit optical signals and/or generating respective strobe signals to operate different subsets of detector pixels of a detector array to detect light (Fig. 10A & ¶ 79, strobe signals τ through Xτ associated with detector pixels ROW 1 through ROW M, respectively), such that a field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a field of view of the detector pixels varies for respective sub-ranges of a distance range imaged by the LIDAR system (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 63-64, 66, 68 & 79, each row of detector array activated τ through Xτ, corresponding to different field of view depth slices; Fig. 1, sub-range patterns 111), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, first detector exposure/strobe window 1351 associated with a first delay/traveling time and corresponding first specified range/depth range; Fig. 10A, ROW 1 activated with a first delay; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79) and
a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 9A, second detector exposure/strobe window 1352 associated with a second delay/traveling time and corresponding second specified range/depth range farther than the first; Fig. 10A, ROW 2 activated with a different delay to provide a different time-gated depth slice; ¶¶ 34, 38, 40, 66, 68, 79), wherein
the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 34, 38, 46 & 79, first strobe window with offset time τ associated with closer range gate than and second strobe window with offset time 2τ, where the more delayed second strobe window, corresponding to farther range, has wider FOV as compared to the closer range slice of the first strobe window as shown in Fig. 1) is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array (Fig. 10A, ROW 1 positioned at peripheral region deactivated, ROW 2 positioned in central region activated; ¶¶ 80-84).
Regarding claim 24, Grauer discloses the method of claim 23, and further discloses: wherein the detector pixels are operable to detect light for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals (Fig. 9A, strobe windows 1351, 1352, …,135N between pulses of the optical signals 1151, 1152, …,115N) responsive to the respective strobe signals (¶¶ 63-64, 66, 68 & 79, strobe signals τ through Xτ associated with pixel row activation of corresponding detection strobe windows 135 of Fig. 9A), wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows corresponding to different first and second sub-ranges of the distance range, respectively (Fig. 9A, first and second strobe windows 1351, 1352; ¶¶ 34, 38 & 66), and wherein: the respective emitter control signals operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination during the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination, different than the first field of illumination, during the second strobe window; and/or the respective strobe signals operate a first subset of the detector pixels to provide a first field of view during the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the detector pixels to provide a second field of view, different than the first field of view, during the second strobe window (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 64-66 & 79, strobe signal τ operates activation timing of first pixel subset ROW 1 associated with first field of view range-gated by first strobe window 1351, and strobe signal 2τ operates activation timing of second pixel subset ROW 2 associated with second field of view range-gated by second strobe window 1352).
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.
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin (US 20190146067 A1) in view of Grunnet-Jepsen (US 20170186166 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Leppin teaches a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), comprising: at least one control circuit (Fig. 1, controller 126) configured to output respective emitter control signals to operate emitter units of an emitter array (Fig. 1 & ¶ 25, controller 126 operates emitter units 114, 116, where functional emitter operations logically suggests the presence of respective emitter control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01) and/or respective strobe signals to operate detector pixels of a detector array (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21-22 & 25, controller 126 operates detector pixels 118, 120, where functional detector operations logically suggests the presence of respective detector control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01) such that a field of illumination of the emitter units (Fig. 1 & ¶ 19, field of illumination 110, 112 associated with emitter units 114, 116) and/or a field of view of the detector pixels (Fig. 1, field of view 122, 124 associated with detector pixels 118, 120) varies for respective sub-ranges of a distance range imaged by the LIDAR system (Fig. 1, FOL A associated with closer sub-range, FOL B associated with father sub-range; ¶ 17, field of illumination 110 directed to closer objects to lidar system 100, and field of illumination 112 directed to farther objects), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range and a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 1, first field of illumination 110 is wide angle / close range illumination and second field of illumination 112 is narrow angle / long range illumination; first and second transmitter units 114, 116 generate first and second fields of illumination 110, 112; first and second receiver units 118, 120 receive light in first and second fields of view 122, 124; ¶¶ 17-22), [1: …].
Leppin does not teach:
(1) “wherein the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array.”
However, Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 26, 74, 80, 94 and 120, where processing circuity is used to individually control emitter subsets, including a mode in which the full array is active and a narrower mode in which only center region emitter elements are active while peripheral regions are deactivated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin with the teachings of Grunnet-Jepsen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide concentrated power in the second, narrower field of illumination thereby improving depth determination for farther distant objects (Grunnet-Jepsen, ¶¶ 62-63, 94).
Regarding claim 23, Leppin discloses a method of operating a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), the method comprising: generating respective emitter control signals to operate different subsets of emitter units of an emitter array to emit optical signals (Fig. 1 & ¶ 25, controller 126 operates emitter units 114, 116, where functional emitter operations logically suggests the presence of respective emitter control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01) and/or generating respective strobe signals to operate different subsets of detector pixels of a detector array to detect light (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21-22 & 25, controller 126 operates detector pixels 118, 120, where functional detector operations logically suggests the presence of respective detector control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01), such that a field of illumination of the emitter units (Fig. 1 & ¶ 19, field of illumination 110, 112 associated with emitter units 114, 116) and/or a field of view of the detector pixels varies for respective sub-ranges of a distance range imaged by the LIDAR system (Fig. 1, field of view 122, 124 associated with detector pixels 118, 120) varies for respective sub-ranges of a distance range imaged by the LIDAR system (Fig. 1, FOL A associated with closer sub-range, FOL B associated with father sub-range; ¶ 17, field of illumination 110 directed to closer objects to lidar system 100, and field of illumination 112 directed to farther objects), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range and a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 1, first field of illumination 110 is wide angle / close range illumination and second field of illumination 112 is narrow angle / long range illumination; first and second transmitter units 114, 116 generate first and second fields of illumination 110, 112; first and second receiver units 118, 120 receive light in first and second fields of view 122, 124; ¶¶ 17-22), [1: …].
Leppin does not teach:
(1) “wherein the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array.”
However, Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 26, 74, 80, 94 and 120, where processing circuity is used to individually control emitter subsets, including a mode in which the full array is active and a narrower mode in which only center region emitter elements are active while peripheral regions are deactivated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Leppin with the teachings of Grunnet-Jepsen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide concentrated power in the second, narrower field of illumination thereby improving depth determination for farther distant objects (Grunnet-Jepsen, ¶¶ 62-63, 94).
Claims 16-17, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen further in view of Smith (US 20200200913 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen teaches LIDAR system of claim 15, however does not disclose: wherein the detector pixels are operable to detect light for respective strobe windows between respective emitter control signals responsive to the respective strobe signals, wherein the respective strobe windows correspond to the respective sub-ranges of the distance range. However, Smith teaches detector pixels (Fig. 10, 20 & 24; ¶ 55) detect light for respective strobe windows (¶ 55, first and second time periods) corresponding to respective sub-ranges of the distance range (Fig. 10, FV1 & FV2; ¶¶ 33 & 55, FV1 shorter range than FV2) operated between repeated emission cycles (¶ 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector pixels of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen with the strobe windows of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably detect and differentiate short-range and long-range return signals, thereby reducing crosstalk and interference mixing between channels, yielding a system with improved measurement accuracy and reliability (Smith, ¶¶ 55-56).
Regarding claim 17, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith teaches the LIDAR system of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows (Leppin, Fig. 1, first and second sub-ranges 122, 124 corresponding to first and second strobe window time periods, as previously modified by Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55), and wherein the respective strobe signals operate a first subset of the detector pixels to detect the light over a first field of view during the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a first subset of the detector pixels 118 to provide a first field of view 122 corresponding to the first strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55), and operate a second subset of the detector pixels to detect light over a second field of view, different than the first field of view, during the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a second subset of the detector pixels 120 to provide a second field of view 124 corresponding to the second strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55).
Regarding claim 20, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith teaches the LIDAR system of claim 16, and further teaches: wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows (Smith, ¶ 55, first and second time periods), and wherein the respective emitter control signals operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination [1: …] (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 19 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter units 114 to provide a first field of illumination 110), and operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination, different than the first field of illumination [2: …] (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 19 & 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter units 116 to provide a second field of illumination 112). Leppin as currently modified in view of Smith does not teach emission timing corresponding to the strobe windows. However, Smith further teaches:
(1) [operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination] “corresponding to the first strobe window” (¶ 29 & 54-55, controller 16 configured to operate a first subset of the emitter units 18 to provide a first field of illumination FV1 detected by first subsets of the detector pixels 20 corresponding to the first time period strobe window); and,
(2) [operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination] “corresponding to the second strobe window” (¶ 29 & 54-55, controller 16 configured to operate second subset of the emitter units 22 to provide a second field of illumination FV2 detected by second subsets of the detector pixels 24 corresponding to the second time period strobe window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emitter units of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith with the further teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to align the emission and detection windows associated with the short- and long-range returns, thereby reducing crosstalk and interference mixing between channels, yielding a system with improved measurement accuracy and reliability (Smith, ¶¶ 54-56).
Regarding claim 24, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the method of claim 23, and further discloses: wherein the detector pixels are operable to detect light (¶¶ 20-21) [1: …], and wherein: the respective emitter control signals operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 19 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter units 114 to provide a first field of illumination 110) [2: …], and operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination, different than the first field of illumination (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 19 & 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter units 116 to provide a second field of illumination 112), [3: …]; and/or the respective strobe signals operate a first subset of the detector pixels to provide a first field of view corresponding to the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the detector pixels to provide a second field of view, different than the first field of view, corresponding to the second strobe window.
Leppin does not disclose:
(1) [wherein the detector pixels are operable to detect light] “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals responsive to the respective strobe signals, wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows corresponding to different first and second sub-ranges of the distance range, respectively”; and,
(2) [operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination] “corresponding to the first strobe window”; and,
(3) [operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination] “corresponding to the second strobe window.”
However, Smith teaches the limitation (1) in Fig. 10 & ¶¶ 54-55, where a controller (16) is configured to operated detector pixels (20, 24) for first and second strobe windows (¶ 55, first and second time periods) corresponding to first and second sub-ranges of the distance range (Fig. 10, FV1 & FV2; ¶¶ 33 & 55, FV1 shorter range than FV2) for repeated emission and detection cycles (¶ 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Leppin with the teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably detect and differentiate short-range and long-range return signals, thereby reducing crosstalk and interference mixing between detector channels, yielding a system with improved measurement accuracy and reliability (Smith, ¶¶ 55-56).
Smith further teaches limitations (2) and (3), specifically, ¶ 29 & 54-55, controller 16 configured to operate a first subset of the emitter units 18 to provide a first field of illumination FV1 detected by first subsets of the detector pixels 20 corresponding to the first time period strobe window; and, ¶ 29 & 54-55, controller 16 configured to operate second subset of the emitter units 22 to provide a second field of illumination FV2 detected by second subsets of the detector pixels 24 corresponding to the second time period strobe window.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to align the emission and detection windows associated with the short- and long-range returns, thereby further reducing crosstalk and interference mixing between channels and yielding greater improvement in measurement accuracy and reliability (Smith, ¶¶ 54-56).
Claims 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen further in view of Smith further in view of Dielacher (US 20150049168 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith teaches the LIDAR system of claim 17, and further teaches: wherein the respective strobe signals operate the second subset of the detector pixels […] (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a second subset of the detector pixels 120 corresponding to the second strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55).
Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith does not teach: [operating the second subset] “with a greater detection sensitivity level than the first subset of the detector pixels.” However, Dielacher teaches the limitation in ¶ 40, specifically, the increased detector sensitivity for distant objects and lower sensitivity for closer objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith with the teachings of Dielacher with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased sensitivity and resolution across a broadened detection range, thereby yielding a lidar system with preserved measurement reliability across an increased range of coverage (Dielacher, ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 19, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen, Smith, and Dielacher teaches the LIDAR system of claim 18, and further teaches: wherein each of the detector pixels comprises a plurality of detectors (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21-22, each detector pixels 118 and 120 comprises “an array of photodetectors”), and wherein the respective strobe signals activate a first subset of the detectors for the first strobe window, and activate a second subset of the detectors, […], for the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1, controller 126 as previously modified by Smith, ¶ 55, first and second strobe window time periods, where first and second subset of detectors understood as all detector elements of 118 and 120, respectively).
The current combination of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen, Smith, and Dielacher does not teach: [activate a second subset of the detectors] “larger than the first subset of the detectors.” However, Dielacher further teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 41-42, where pixels are binned into larger groups to provide for higher sensor sensitivity for sensing of more distant objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen, Smith, and Dielacher with the additional teachings of Dielacher with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased sensitivity for the detection of long-range objects, thereby yielding a lidar system with increased ranging capability and measurement reliability (Dielacher, ¶¶ 12, 41).
Regarding claim 25, Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith teaches the method of claim 24, and further teaches: wherein the respective strobe signals operate the second subset of the detector pixels during the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a second subset of the detector pixels 120 corresponding to the second strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55) [and] the first subset of the detector pixels during the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a first subset of the detector pixels 118 corresponding to the first strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55).
Leppin in view of Smith does not teach: [operating the second subset] “with a greater detection sensitivity level than” [the first subset of the detector pixels]. However, Dielacher teaches the limitation in ¶ 40, specifically, the increased detector sensitivity for distant objects and lower sensitivity for closer objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Leppin in view of Grunnet-Jepsen and Smith with the teachings of Dielacher with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased sensitivity and resolution across a broadened detection range, thereby preserving measurement reliability across an increased range of coverage (Dielacher, ¶ 40).
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Grunnet-Jepsen.
Regarding claim 1, Leppin teaches a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 1, LIDAR system 100), comprising:
an emitter array comprising a plurality of emitter units (Fig. 1, TX HEAD with emitter units 114 and 116; ¶ 18) operable to emit optical signals (Fig. 1, fields of illumination 110 and 112; ¶ 19);
a detector array comprising a plurality of detector pixels operable to detect light [1: …] (Fig. 1, RX HEAD with detector pixels 118 and 120; ¶¶ 21-22, “an array of photodetectors”); and
one or more control circuits [2: …] (Fig. 1, controller 126), and
to provide first field of illumination and/or a first field of view for a first strobe window associated with a first distance sub-range and a second, narrower field of illumination and/or a second, narrower field of view for a second strobe window associated with a second, farther distance sub-range (Fig. 1, first field of illumination 110 is wide angle / close range illumination and second field of illumination 112 is narrow angle / long range illumination; first and second transmitter units 114, 116 generate first and second fields of illumination 110, 112; first and second receiver units 118, 120 receive light in first and second fields of view 122, 124; ¶¶ 17-22), [3: …].
Leppin does not teach:
(1) [the detector pixels detecting light] “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals”; and,
(2) [one or more control circuits] “configured to selectively operate different subsets of the emitter units and/or different subsets of the detector pixels such that a field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a field of view of the detector pixels is varied based on the respective strobe windows,” and
(3) “wherein the second, narrower field of illumination and/or second, narrower field of view is provided by deactivating a subset of the emitter units or detector pixels located at one or more peripheral regions of the respective array.”
However, Smith teaches the limitations (1) and (2) in Fig. 10 & ¶¶ 54-55, where a controller (16) is configured to operated different subsets of the detector pixels (20, 24) for respective strobe windows (¶ 55, first and second time periods) corresponding to different fields of view (FV1, FV2) for repeated emission and detection cycles (¶ 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more control circuits of Leppin with the selective operation of different detector pixels as taught by Smith with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably detect and differentiate short-range and long-range return signals, thereby reducing crosstalk and interference mixing between channels, yielding a system with improved measurement accuracy and reliability (Smith, ¶¶ 55-56).
Leppin in view of Smith however does not teach limitation (3). However, Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 26, 74, 80, 94 and 120, where processing circuity is used to individually control emitter subsets, including a mode in which the full array is active and a narrower mode in which only center region emitter elements are active while peripheral regions are deactivated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith with the teachings of Grunnet-Jepsen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide concentrated power in the second, narrower field of illumination thereby improving depth determination for farther distant objects (Grunnet-Jepsen, ¶¶ 62-63, 94).
Regarding claim 2, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the respective strobe windows comprise first and second strobe windows corresponding to different first and second sub-ranges of a distance range, respectively (Leppin, Fig. 1, first and second sub-ranges 122, 124 corresponding to first and second strobe window time periods, as previously modified by Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55), and wherein the one or more control circuits comprises: an emitter control circuit configured to operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination during the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter unit 114 associated with first field of illumination 110 received by detector pixel 118 during the first strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV1 & ¶ 55, as previously combined), and to operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination, different than the first field of illumination, during the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21, 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter unit 116 associated with second field of illumination 112 received by detector pixel 120 during the second strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV2 & ¶ 55, as previously combined); and/or a detector control circuit configured to operate a first subset of the detector pixels to provide a first field of view during the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 22 & 25, controller 126 operates a first subset of the detector pixels 118 to provide a first field of view 122 corresponding to the first strobe window time period, as previously combined in view of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55).
Regarding claim 7, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, and further teaches: the first strobe window corresponds to closer distance sub-ranges of the distance range than the second strobe window; and the first field of illumination and/or the first field of view is wider than the second field of illumination and/or the second field of view (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶ 17, closer-distance sub-range FOL A with wider field of view as compared to farther-distance sub-range FOL B, as previously modified with first and second time period strobe windows of Smith, Fig. 10 & ¶ 55, corresponding to closer-distance sub-range (FV1) and farther sub-range (FV2), respectively).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Grunnet-Jepsen further in view of Dielacher.
Regarding claim 3, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, however does not teach: wherein the detector control circuit is configured to operate the second subset of the detector pixels with a greater detection sensitivity level than the first subset of the detector pixels. Dielacher teaches the limitation in ¶ 40, specifically, the increased detector sensitivity for distant objects and lower sensitivity for closer objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Dielacher with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased sensitivity and resolution across a broadened detection range, thereby yielding a lidar system with preserved measurement reliability across an increased range of coverage (Dielacher, ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 4, Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen and Dielacher teaches the LIDAR system of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein each of the detector pixels comprises a plurality of detectors (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21-22, each detector pixels 118 and 120 comprises “an array of photodetectors”), and wherein the detector control circuit is configured to generate respective strobe signals that activate a first subset of the detectors for the first strobe window, and activate a second subset of the detectors, […], for the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1, controller 126 as previously modified by Smith, ¶ 55, first and second strobe window time periods, where first and second subset of detectors understood as all detector elements of 118 and 120, respectively).
The current combination of Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen and Dielacher does not teach: [activate a second subset of the detectors] “larger than the first subset of the detectors.” However, Dielacher further teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 41-42, where pixels are binned into larger groups to provide for higher sensor sensitivity for sensing of more distant objects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen and Dielacher with the additional teachings of Dielacher with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased sensitivity for the detection of long-range objects, thereby yielding a lidar system with increased ranging capability and measurement reliability (Dielacher, ¶¶ 12, 41).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Grunnet-Jepsen further in view of Burroughs (US 20180301872 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 7, however does not disclose: wherein the first subset of the emitter units comprises one or more of the emitter units that are positioned at a peripheral region of the emitter array, and the second subset of the emitter units comprises one or more of the emitter units that are positioned at a central region of the emitter array. Burroughs teaches the limitation in Fig. 3B, where the first subset of the emitter units comprises one or more of the emitter units that are positioned at a peripheral region of the emitter array (317’) and the second subset of the emitter units comprises one or more of the emitter units that are positioned at a central region of the emitter array (317). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Burroughs with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for a wider field of view with tailored power and resolution distribution while improving heat dissipation and overall system reliability (Burroughs, ¶¶ 56-59).
Regarding claim 9, Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Burroughs teaches the LIDAR system of claim 8, however, as currently combined, does not teach: wherein the first subset of the emitter units comprises a first string of the emitter units electrically connected in series, and wherein the second subset of the emitter units comprises a second string of the emitter units electrically connected in series. On the other hand, Burroughs further teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 17, 21, 73, specifically, the series connection of emitter units to define columns within the emitter array. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Burroughs with the additional teachings of Burroughs with a reasonable expectation for success in order to offer lower current requirements, reduce inductive losses, and increase switching speed, thereby yielding cleaner and higher fidelity pulsed illumination and improved measurement reliability (Burroughs, ¶ 73).
Claims 5-6, 21-22, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Grunnet-Jepsen further in view of Yang (US 20170356981 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 2, however does not teach: wherein the second field of illumination comprises a greater emission power level than the first field of illumination. Yang teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 28 and 35-36, specifically, the increased power supplied to a field of view with farther distanced targets as compared to objects with closer range proximity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased illumination power output enabling the detection of farther objects, thereby yielding a lidar system with increased ranging capability (Yang, ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 6, Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 5, and further teaches: wherein the emitter control circuit is configured to generate respective emitter control signals (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶ 25, controller 126 operates emitter units 114, 116, where functional emitter operations logically suggests the presence of respective emitter control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01) comprising [1: …] to activate the first subset of the emitters for the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter unit 114 associated with first field of illumination 110 received by detector pixel 118 during the first strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV1 & ¶ 55, as previously combined), and comprising [2: …], to activate the second subset of the emitters for the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21, 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter unit 116 associated with second field of illumination 112 received by detector pixel 120 during the second strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV2 & ¶ 55, as previously combined).
Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang, as currently combined, does not teach the emitter control circuit supplies different current to the subset of the emitters. However, Yang teaches in ¶¶ 23-24 a controller used to drive differ output power by supplying “a first non-zero peak current” (¶ 36) and “a second peak current, greater than the first non-zero peak current (¶ 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang with the further teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to precisely regulate laser power and increase range through the tailored control of drive currents, thereby yielding a lidar system with regulated laser power output for effectively extended ranging and detection capability (Yang, ¶¶ 24, 29).
Regarding claim 21, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 22, however does not teach: wherein the second field of illumination comprises a greater emission power level than the first field of illumination. Yang teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 28 and 35-36, specifically, the increased power supplied to a field of view with farther distanced targets as compared to objects with closer range proximity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased illumination power output enabling the detection of farther objects, thereby yielding a lidar system with increased ranging capability (Yang, ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 22, Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang teaches the LIDAR system of claim 21, and further teaches: wherein the emitter control circuit is configured to generate respective emitter control signals (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶ 25, controller 126 operates emitter units 114, 116, where functional emitter operations logically suggests the presence of respective emitter control signals from the controller. See MPEP 2144.01) comprising [1: …] to activate the first subset of the emitters for the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter unit 114 associated with first field of illumination 110 received by detector pixel 118 during the first strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV1 & ¶ 55, as previously combined), and comprising [2: …], to activate the second subset of the emitters for the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21, 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter unit 116 associated with second field of illumination 112 received by detector pixel 120 during the second strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV2 & ¶ 55, as previously combined).
Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang, as currently combined, does not teach the emitter control circuit supplies different current to the subset of the emitters. However, Yang teaches in ¶¶ 23-24 a controller used to drive differ output power by supplying “a first non-zero peak current” (¶ 36) and “a second peak current, greater than the first non-zero peak current (¶ 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith, Grunnet-Jepsen, and Yang with the further teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to precisely regulate laser power and increase range through the tailored control of drive currents, thereby yielding a lidar system with regulated laser power output for effectively extended ranging and detection capability (Yang, ¶¶ 24, 29).
Regarding claim 26, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the method of claim 24, and further teaches: wherein the respective emitter control signals operate the second subset of the emitter units corresponding to the second strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21, 25, controller 126 operates second subset of the emitter unit 116 associated with second field of illumination 112 received by detector pixel 120 corresponding to the second strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV2 & ¶ 55, as previously combined) [and] the first subset of the emitter units corresponding to the first strobe window (Leppin, Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 21 & 25, controller 126 operates first subset of the emitter unit 114 associated with first field of illumination 110 received by detector pixel 118 corresponding to the first strobe window time period of Smith, Fig. 10, FV1 & ¶ 55, as previously combined).
Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen does not teach: [operating second subset of the emitter] units “with a greater power level than” [first subset of the emitter]. However, Yang teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 28 and 35-36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased illumination power output enabling the detection of farther objects and thereby increase ranging capability (Yang, ¶ 29).
Regarding claim 28, Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the one or more control circuits selectively operate different subsets of the emitter units and/or different subsets of the detector pixels (Leppin, Fig. 1; ¶ 25, controller 126 operating emitter units 114 and 116 and detector pixels 118 and 120; Smith, Fig. 10; ¶¶ 54-55, controller 16 operating different emitter/detector subsets during first and second time periods) such that […] the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a detection sensitivity level of a field of view of the detector pixels is varied based on distance sub-ranges corresponding to the respective strobe windows (Smith, Fig. 10; ¶¶ 33, 54-55, first and second strobe windows corresponding to different ranges).
Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen does not teach: “at least one of an emission power level of” [the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or a detection sensitivity level of a field of view of the detector pixels is varied based on distance sub-ranges]. Yang teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 28-29, 35-36, varying output power according to nearer and farther ranging limits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Leppin in view of Smith and Grunnet-Jepsen with the teachings of Yang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide for increased illumination power output enabling the detection of farther objects, thereby yielding a lidar system with increased ranging capability (Yang, ¶ 29).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Grauer2 (US 20150160340 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Grauer discloses the LIDAR system of claim 12, and further discloses: the image frame is a current image frame (Fig. 10A & ¶ 79, gated image captured by all rows of pixel array); and the one or more control circuits is configured to provide the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or the field of view of the detector pixels (Fig. 1 & ¶¶ 40 & 43, processing unit 130 gated imaging control of detector 120) that varies for the respective sub-ranges of the distance range in the current image frame […] (Fig. 10A & ¶¶ 64-68 & 79, each row of detector array respectively activated with respect to strobe window start time offsets τ through Xτ, associated with different field of view depth slices Fig. 1, 111).
Grauer does not disclose: [varying the detector pixel sub-ranges] “based on one or more features of the field of view indicated by detection signals received from the detector pixels in a preceding image frame before the current image frame.” However, Grauer2 teaches the limitation in ¶ 38, where a preceding gated image is used to establish the proceeding sub-range gates based on target location identified in the preceding gated image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system of Grauer with the teachings of Grauer2 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to bracket and tighten the gated depth segments around the target, thereby reducing irrelevant background clutter and increasing target signal-to-noise, contrast, and detection reliability (Grauer2, ¶¶ 35, 37).
Regarding claim 14, Grauer in view of Grauer2 teaches the LIDAR system of claim 13, however, as currently combined, does not teach: wherein, in the preceding image frame, the one or more control circuits are configured to provide the field of illumination of the emitter units and/or the field of view of the detector pixels that is static for the respective sub-ranges of the distance range. However, Grauer2 further teaches the limitation in ¶ 66, where static fields of illumination has been predefined for corresponding sub-ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the LIDAR system of Grauer in view of Grauer2 with the additional teachings of Grauer2 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce wasted illumination and power consumption while preserving effective performance across short- and long-range gated images (Grauer2, ¶ 66).
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 extension fee 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 ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights