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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (lDS) submitted on 03/30/2022, 10/24/2023 and 01/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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 2-10, 16-22 and 24-26 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.
Regarding claim 2, lines 5-8 recite “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, and to operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination … during the second strobe window.” Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites that the detector pixels detect light “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals.” Stated differently, claim 1 defines the strobe windows as occurring in the intervals between emitted optical pulses of the emitter units, while claim 2 requires the emitter units to provide illumination during the strobe windows. Therefore, it is unclear how the emitter units can provide illumination during a strobe window while maintaining consistency with pulsed emissions outside of said windows. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read “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 … corresponding to the second strobe window” in accordance with Specification ¶¶ 8, 25, 33, 54 and 66 (“corresponding to the respective strobe windows defined between the pulses of the optical signals from the emitters”).
Regarding claim 4, line 3 recites “respective strobe signals.” It is unclear whether the limitation is directed towards the “respective strobe signals” of claim 1, or introduces another set of respective strobe signals.
Regarding claim 16, line 2 recites “pulses of the optical signals.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Regarding claim 20, lines 2-6 recite “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 … during the second strobe window.” Claim 16, from which claim 20 depends, recites that the detector pixels detect light “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals.” It is unclear how the emitter units can provide illumination during a strobe window while maintaining consistency with emitting outside of said windows. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read “respective emitter control signals operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination corresponding to the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination … corresponding to the second strobe window” in accordance with Specification ¶¶ 8, 25, 33, 54 and 66.
Regarding claim 24, lines 6-9 recite “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 … during the second strobe window.” Lines 1-2 recites that the detector pixels detect light “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals.” It is unclear how the emitter units can provide illumination during a strobe window while maintaining consistency with emitting outside of said windows. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read “emitter control signals operate a first subset of the emitter units to provide a first field of illumination corresponding to the first strobe window, and operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination … corresponding to the second strobe window” in accordance with Specification ¶¶ 8, 25, 33, 54 and 66.
Regarding claim 26, lines 1-3 recite “emitter control signals operate the second subset of emitter unites during the second strobe window… the first subset of the emitter units during the first strobe widow.” Claim 24, from which claim 26 depends, recites that the detector pixels detect light “for respective strobe windows between pulses of the optical signals.” It is unclear how the emitter units can operate to provide illumination during a strobe window while maintaining consistency with emitting outside of said windows. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to read “emitter control signals operate the second subset of emitter unites corresponding to the second strobe window… the first subset of the emitter units corresponding to the first strobe widow” in accordance with Specification ¶¶ 8, 25, 33, 54 and 66.
Claims 3-10 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 2.
Claims 17-19 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 16.
Claims 21-22 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 20.
Claims 25-26 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 24.
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 (US20180203122A1).
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).
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 during 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, during 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 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).
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 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 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).
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).
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leppin (US20190146067A1).
Regarding claim 15, Leppin discloses 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).
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).
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 1-2, 7, 16-17, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith (US20200200913A1).
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).
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.”
However, Smith teaches the limitations 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 for 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 2, Leppin in view of Smith 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 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).
Regarding claim 16, Leppin discloses the LIDAR system of claim 15, however does not disclose: 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 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 with the strobe windows of Smith with a reasonable expectation for 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 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 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] “during 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 during the first time period strobe window); and,
(2) [operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination] “during 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 during 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 Smith with the further teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation for 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 discloses 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 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.
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] “during the first strobe window”; and,
(3) [operate a second subset of the emitter units to provide a second field of illumination] “during 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 for 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 during 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 during 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 further modify the method of Leppin in view of Smith with the further teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation for 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 3-4, 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Dielacher (US20150049168A1).
Regarding claim 3, Leppin in view of Smith 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 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 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 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 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 18, Leppin in view of Smith discloses 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 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 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 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 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 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 Smith discloses 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 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 5-6, 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Yang (US20170356981A1).
Regarding claim 5, Leppin in view of Smith 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 teaches the method of claim 24, and further teaches: wherein the respective emitter control signals operate the second subset of the emitter units 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] the first subset of the emitter units 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).
Leppin in view of Smith 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 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).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leppin in view of Smith further in view of Burroughs (US20180301872A1).
Regarding claim 8, Leppin in view of Smith 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 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 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 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grauer in view of Grauer2 (US20150160340A1).
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 for 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 for success in order to reduce wasted illumination and power consumption while preserving effective performance across short- and long-range gated images (Grauer2, ¶ 66).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Pacala (US20190011561A1) which discloses a plurality of emitter subarrays corresponding to varying fields of illumination, and associated receiver subarrays corresponding to varying fields of views.
Donovan (US20190302246A1) which discloses a lidar system employing a receiver array with adaptive optical gating and field of view.
Warren (US20160164261A1) which discloses an emitter array with adaptive illumination and intensity control.
Bills (US10445896B1) which discloses range-gated measurements wherein the detector measurements are timed in between emission pulses.
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