DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 12/16/2025 in which claim 23 has been amended. Currently claims 1-25 are pending for examination in this application.
Based on this reply:
The previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
The previous specification objections are withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses several points regarding the 102 rejection of independent claim 1 (pages 13-16).
Regarding “a)” (page 14), the applicant asserts that Chu does not teach a daylight visible laser output, however cited paragraph [0005] at least contemplates a visible spectrum laser.
Regarding “b)” (page 14-15), the applicant asserts that the photodetectors of Chu, which may be Avalanche Photo Diodes, are not disclosed as being used “for receiving the reflected light input and outputting corresponding input signals”. The cited paragraph [0032] describes two photodetectors, including “target photodetector 206”. The subsequent paragraphs go on to further explain, “In operation, a lens 202 focuses the optical light signal (beam) output by the laser 201 on a target object 220… The lens 207 focuses the light signal reflected off the target 220 to the target photodetector 206 for detection by the target photodetector 206. The target photodetector 206 converts the detected light signal into an electrical signal at the laser modulation frequency” ([0033-34]). This interaction is also laid out in FIG. 2.
Regarding “c)” (page 15), the applicant asserts that “calculating phase differences between the emitted laser and reflected light input” is not taught by Chu. However, while Chu calculates the phase difference of the optical signals via the phase difference of the corresponding electrical signals, it is understood that these two values are related to one another. The claim does not appear to contain language which would restrict the manner in which the calculated phase difference is acquired so as to exclude the method of Chu.
Regarding “d)” (page 15-16), the applicant asserts that Chu does not disclose a housing which meets the claimed limitations. However, if the laser rangefinder device of Chu is “in a cellular phone”, then it would be understood that at least the housing of the cellular phone, which is ubiquitous in the art of cellular phones, would be “encapsulating or partially encapsulating” the laser rangefinder. Further, any standard cellular phone housing would inherently provide isolation for the optical elements of the laser rangefinder from some external light sources.
For these reasons, the prior art rejections are being maintained. In an effort to improve clarity, some aspects of the referenced paragraphs of Chu have been updated.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chu (US 20200011978 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches:
A daylight visible laser rangefinder ([0031] “FIG. 2 shows an example of a laser range finder system”), comprising:
a laser element emitting a daylight visible laser output at one or more predefined frequency or frequencies ([0031] “FIG. 2 shows an example of a laser range finder system including a laser 201 (e.g., diode laser). The laser 201 is driven at a laser modulation frequency by a driver 203.”; [0005] “It is generally required to have laser optical power below 1 milliwatt in the visible spectrum range for continuous wave operation.”);
a receiver element to receive reflected light input generated by reflection of the daylight visible laser output off a target ([0032-34] “The laser range finder system also includes a reference photodetector 205, and a target photodetector 206… In operation, a lens 202 focuses the optical light signal (beam) output by the laser 201 on a target object 220… The lens 207 focuses the light signal reflected off the target 220 to the target photodetector 206 for detection by the target photodetector 206. The target photodetector 206 converts the detected light signal into an electrical signal at the laser modulation frequency”), the receiver comprising;
a sensing element having one or more avalanche photodiodes, avalanche photodiode arrays, silicon photomultipliers (SiPM), and/or other photodetector sensors for receiving the reflected light input and outputting corresponding input signals ([0032] “each of the photodetectors may be implemented with an Avalanche Photo Diode (APD”); and
a gain control element to vary the gain of the sensing element ([0054] “Controller 1010 may control the high voltage supply 1005 to modulate the gain of APD as the distance and reflectivity of target changes.”);
a phase detector to measure the phase of emitted lasers and reflected light inputs ([0035] “The controller 218 computes the phase offset between the reference signal and the target signal, which provides time of flight information for the light signal reflected off of the target.”);
a processing element having one or more processors to calculate phase differences between the emitted laser and reflected light input received by the receiver element in determining distance measurements ([0035] “The controller 218 computes the phase offset between the reference signal and the target signal, which provides time of flight information for the light signal reflected off of the target.”);
a memory element having one or more non-transitory memories for storing instructions relating to calculating of distance measurements and the resulting calculated distance measurements ([0064] “The code may reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, or any other form of storage medium known in the art. An exemplary storage medium may be coupled to the processor such that the processor can read code from storage medium and execute the code to perform the operations discussed herein.”);
a housing element to encapsulate or partially encapsulate the laser rangefinder elements, isolate the receiver element from light sources other than the reflected light input ([0030] “FIG. 1 shows an example in which a miniaturized laser range finder 102 in a cellular phone 101 or other mobile device uses a laser beam 103 to measure the distance between the cellular phone 101 and a target object 104.” The range finder is thus inside the housing of the mobile device, and any standard housing would be understood to isolate the rangefinder element from at least some external light sources.), and
further having one or more windows or other openings such that the emitted laser and reflected light input may travel between rangefinder laser elements/receiver elements and the external environment (The fact that the laser beam can be used to measure the distance between the mobile device and an object means that there must be a window or such opening for the laser beam to travel through.); and
a power element for providing electrical power to powered elements of the receiver element ([0032] “each of the photodetectors may be implemented with an Avalanche Photo Diode (APD) biased by a APD bias voltage (labeled “APD Bias” in FIG. 2) generated by a voltage supply 210.”).
Regarding claim 13, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
further including a user interface to communicate measured distance ([0035] “The controller 218 then uses the phase offset and speed of light to estimate the distance to the target. The controller 218 may output the estimated distance to another processor (e.g., for display to a user).”).
Regarding claim 19, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on gain levels ([0036] “In this regard, embodiments of the present disclosure use an “on chip” integrated silicon LED to calibrate the phase offset setting of the photodetector at different gain settings and the IF filters to ensure resolution of 1 millimeter or better.”).
Regarding claim 21, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the gain control element adjusts the bias voltage to the sensing element to control the gain of the sensing element ([0039] “It is desirable that variable gain is achieved by biasing the APD until a useable signal to noise level is achieved. Typically, the avalanche gain of the APD increases with APD bias. Therefore, adjusting the APD bias is a simple and effective means to achieve gain control.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Eichenholz et al. (US 20200076152 A1), hereinafter Eichenholz.
Regarding claim 2, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but is not relied upon for:
wherein the receiver element further includes one or more bandpass filters.
Eichenholz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the receiver element further includes one or more bandpass filters ([0086] “In particular embodiments, a lidar system 100 may include an optical filter having an optical bandpass corresponding to a wavelength of light emitted by the light source 110.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the optical bandpass filter of Ferreira, as is customary in the art for reducing signal from other sources of light (Eichenholz: [0086] “The optical filter may prevent most background light (e.g., sunlight, light from other lidar systems, light from vehicle headlights, or other ambient sources of light) from reaching the receiver 140, which may result in a reduction of noise in the electrical signal produced by the receiver 140.”).
Regarding claim 3, Chu in view of Eichenholz teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more bandpass filters are calibrated so as to account for phase shifts (The examiner notes that an optical bandpass filter is not affected by phase shifts which do not affect the wavelength of the light, such as those arising from the travel time of a reflected beam. For phase shifts such as the doppler effect, a typical bandpass filter has a pass-band width much larger than a realistic wavelength shift due to target velocity. See, for example, Eichenholz: [0086] “For example, a lidar system 100 may include a light source 110 that emits light at approximately 1319 nm, and the lidar system may include an optical bandpass filter with an optical transmission of greater than 80% from approximately 1317 nm to approximately 1321 nm (corresponding to a 4-nm pass-band width).”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Tobechat et al. (US 20220155445 A1), hereinafter Tobechat.
Regarding claim 4, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the housing element is made of or includes carbon-fiber filled injection moldable plastic.
Tobechat, in the same field of optical measurement systems, teaches:
wherein the housing element is made of or includes carbon-fiber filled injection moldable plastic ([0041] “The monolithic structural element can be precisely milled or cast from metal and, if necessary, reworked. It is also conceivable that the monolithic structural element is made of plastic using an injection molding process, for example fiber-reinforced plastic.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the monolithic fiber-reinforced, injection moldable, plastic housing of Tobechat to ensure unambiguous relative placement of the optical components (Tobechat: [0040]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu.
Regarding claim 5, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the windows are square and adhered or otherwise secured to the inside or outside of the housing element.
However, the shape of the window is a simple design choice, of which a square window is one obvious choice with a predictable result. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the window on a mobile device should be secured to the housing in some way, to prevent the window from detaching during movement of said mobile device.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Habgood (GB 2503207 A).
Regarding claim 6, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the windows are alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass.
Habgood, in the same field of laser rangefinders, teaches:
wherein the windows are alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass ((Pg. 11, Lines 14-24) “The cover 29 is arranged to house at least the controller 18 and in some embodiments, may house all of the components of the first apparatus 12… The cover 29 may have a robust structure and comprise robust materials that result in the first apparatus 12 being relatively difficult to damage. For example, the cover 29 may comprise a metal (such as titanium) and/or alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass (such as gorilla glass)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass of Habgood for robustness (Habgood: ).
Regarding claim 12, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but is not relied upon for:
further including one or more user input controls.
Habgood, in the same field of laser rangefinders, teaches:
further including one or more user input controls ((Pg. 10, Lines 7-11) “The user input device 26 may be any suitable user input device and may include a touch screen display, one or more keys and/or circuitry for voice recognition. The controller 18 is configured to receive a control signal from the user input device 26 in response to the user operating the user input device 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the user controls of Habgood so as to allow the user to operate the device (Habgood: (Pg. 10, Lines, 13, 15) “a user may operate the user input device 26 to control the operation of the positioning circuitry 20, the rangefinder 22 and the image sensor 24.”).
Regarding claim 24, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
further having a waterproof housing for use in underwater environments.
Habgood, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further having a waterproof housing for use in underwater environments ((Pg. 11, Lines 14-24) “The cover 29 is arranged to house at least the controller 18 and in some embodiments, may house all of the components of the first apparatus 12. The cover 29 may comprise waterproof materials (such as plastics and/or metals) and may be structured to prevent the flow of liquid to the inside of the cover 29. For example, gaps in the cover 29 may have a waterproof seal to prevent the flow of liquid there through.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the waterproof housing of Habgood to prevent water from entering the electronics.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ferreira et al. (US 20200284883 A1), hereinafter Ferreira.
Regarding claim 7, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but is not relied upon for:
wherein the laser element is a green or other daylight visible laser.
Ferreira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the laser element is a green or other daylight visible laser ([0431] “The LIDAR Sensor System 10 comprises a First LIDAR Sensing System 40 that may comprise a Light Source 42 configured to emit electro-magnetic or other radiation 120, in particular a continuous-wave or pulsed laser radiation in the blue and/or infrared wavelength range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the blue laser source of Ferreira as one choice of many laser wavelengths with a predictable result.
Regarding claim 8, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
including one or more additional laser elements each having a corresponding receiver element.
Ferreira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
including one or more additional laser elements each having a corresponding receiver element ([2299] “Another aspect is that the two LIDAR lasers can emit infrared laser pulses with different wavelengths, but, via the mirror system, still fall synchronously on the same object spot. The two back-scattered laser pulses are then directed onto two sensing elements each sensitive to the corresponding laser wavelength. Proper analysis of the measured signals lead to better object detection since the two different wavelengths, infrared or visible, for example blue, are reflected differently.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the multiple laser systems of Ferreira to improve object detection.
Regarding claim 9, Chu in view of Ferreira teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches:
wherein each of the laser elements operates at a different wavelength from others of the laser elements and at least one laser element operates in a daylight visible wavelength ([2299] “Proper analysis of the measured signals lead to better object detection since the two different wavelengths, infrared or visible, for example blue, are reflected differently.”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Olsson et al. (US 20120242341 A1), hereinafter Olsson.
Regarding claim 10, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
incorporated in a buried utility locator device configured to determine and/or map utility line positions.
Olsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser rangefinder incorporated into a buried utility locator ([abs] “Portable self-standing electromagnetic (EM) field sensing locator systems with attachments for finding and mapping buried objects such as utilities”; [0240] “Turning now to FIG. 25B, a front view is given of the locator 102 from FIG. 3 in an open disposition for operation with the accessory mounting interface (104, not shown) coupled to an exemplary laser range finding accessory embodiment. In FIG. 25B the laser range finding device is attached to the locator by means of the accessory mounting interface.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the distance measurement system of Chu into a ground utility locator, as taught by Olsson, to measure distances from the locator to the ground (Olsson: [0240] “It may measure distance to ground directly beneath it, or scan to either side, as indicated by lines 1812, 1814, 1816, as examples.”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Olsson and further in view of Habgood.
Regarding claim 11, Chu in view of Olsson teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 10, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the buried utility locator device further includes one or more cameras to generate images of the ground surface or other distance measurement target(s) of the laser rangefinder.
Habgood, in the same field of endeavor, teaches combining a laser rangefinder with an image sensor to capture images of the ranging objects ([abs] “Also included may be an image sensor for obtaining an image of the object.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu in view of Olsson with the image sensor of Habgood to capture images of the measurement target(s).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ishii (US 20230056262 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches:
While Chu contemplates correcting phase error due to temperature ([0047] “In addressing the above challenges, embodiments of the present disclosure provide systems and methods to correct the phase offset in the RF and/or IF signal path of a laser range finder caused by component mismatch due to, for example, environment (e.g., changes in temperature), process variation during manufacturing, and aging.”), Chu fails to teach explicit correction based on a temperature sensor:
further including a temperature sensor, and wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on the ambient temperature of the environment, lasers, or associated circuitry.
Ishii, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
further including a temperature sensor, and wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on the ambient temperature of the environment, lasers, or associated circuitry ([0079] “The temperature dependent phase error ϕ.sub.Temp may be obtained by measuring the temperature T at the iToF sensor with a temperature sensor (see 717 in FIG. 7) and then deriving the phase error ϕ.sub.Temp from the temperature T by, for example, using a pre-recorded characteristic curve (see FIG. 4) which maps the temperature T to a temperature dependent phase error ϕ.sub.Temp.”; [0031] “According to some embodiment the control unit may be further configured to cancel a temperature dependent phase error of the imaging device caused by a temperature dependency of the phase angle measured by the imaging device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measuring system of Chu with the temperature sensor and correction of Ishii, as one other known and predictable choice for correcting temperature-based phase error.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Sawachi (US 20080231832 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on ambient light levels.
Sawachi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on ambient light levels ([0023] “the light-detecting unit may comprise an image capturing device for sampling the amount of light detected in exposure periods established on the basis of a constant cyclic period with respect to the time when the modulated light starts being emitted, and the corrector may calculate an offset component by subtracting the total amount of the reflected light from the total amount of light detected, in a certain period, and correct the distance up to the object in view of the offset component. Accordingly, a correction error due to an ambient light component and an offset component can be reduced for higher distance measurement accuracy.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the ambient light correction of Sawachi to improve measurement accuracy.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Foix et al. (Foix, Sergi, Guillem Alenya, and Carme Torras. "Lock-in time-of-flight (ToF) cameras: A survey." IEEE Sensors Journal 11.9 (2011): 1917-1926.) hereinafter Foix.
Regarding claim 16, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on signal noise.
Foix, in the same field of endeavor, teaches compensation for signal noise in modulated time-of-flight devices by computing the average across multiple readings ([Pg. 6, IV. Depth Measurement Errors and Compensation, C. Non-systematic Errors, Signal-to-noise ratio]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the error reduction techniques as shown by Foix in the distance measurement system of Chu to reduce measurement error.
Regarding claim 18, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not teach:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on the waveform shape of the reflected light input at the sensing element.
Foix, in the same field of endeavor, teaches various ways to compensate for waveform error (“Depth Distortion” or “Wiggling Error”) in modulated time-of-flight devices ([Pg. 3-4, IV. Depth Measurement Errors and Compensation, A. Systematic Errors, Depth Distortion]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the error reduction techniques as shown by Foix in the distance measurement system of Chu to reduce measurement error.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Cameron et al. (US 5006721 A), hereinafter Cameron.
Regarding claim 17, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on the amplitude of the reflected light input waveform at the sensing element.
Cameron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on the amplitude of the reflected light input waveform at the sensing element ((Col. 9, Lines 27-56) “This intensity signal is used to determine an error factor in the range signal. In particular, due to an observed phenomenon known as "differential phasing", the measured phase delay in the processed signal will vary in accordance with the amplitude of the signal… To correct for this and thus improve the accuracy of the system, an error correction table is programmed into a PROM during initial calibration of the scanner. The error correction data is addressed in accordance with the observed or measured intensity and range/phase data. In other words, the error correction look-up table provides a predetermined corrected range value for any given combination of measured range and intensity values.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the intensity dependent error correction of Cameron to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 20, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on target fluorescence, target color, target material, or other target attribute.
Cameron, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the calculated distance measurement is adjusted based on target fluorescence, target color, target material, or other target attribute. ((Col. 9, Lines 27-56) “This intensity signal is used to determine an error factor in the range signal. In particular, due to an observed phenomenon known as "differential phasing", the measured phase delay in the processed signal will vary in accordance with the amplitude of the signal… To correct for this and thus improve the accuracy of the system, an error correction table is programmed into a PROM during initial calibration of the scanner. The error correction data is addressed in accordance with the observed or measured intensity and range/phase data. In other words, the error correction look-up table provides a predetermined corrected range value for any given combination of measured range and intensity values.” Such an intensity-dependent correction would, for example, correct for variation in surface reflectivity of the target.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the intensity dependent error correction of Cameron to improve measurement accuracy.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Avci et al., US 20210104866 A1 (“Avci”).
Regarding claim 22, Chu teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sensing element further includes a signal amplifier for amplifying input signals.
Avci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the sensing element further includes a signal amplifier for amplifying input signals. ([0085] “FIG. 15 is a block diagram of an example laser range finding, e.g., LIDAR, system 1500 according to some embodiments of the present disclosure… The receiver chain 1530 may include an optical sensor, e.g., a photodiode (PD) 1532, a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) 1534, an LPF 1536, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) driver 1538, and an ADC 1540.“)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu with the signal amplifier of Avci as one of the known techniques for ensuring adequate signal levels.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Chu in view of Avci teaches the laser rangefinder of [claim 22], as described above, and further teaches:
wherein the gain control element varies gain of the signal amplifier to control the gain of the sensing element ([0085] “a receiver chain can include a PGA coupled between the TIA 1534 and the LPF 1536. Such a PGA could be implemented in place of or in addition to the ADC driver 1538.” PGA represents a Programmable Gain Amplifier.).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Habgood and further in view of Ferreira.
Regarding claim 25, Chu in view of Habgood teaches the laser rangefinder of claim 24, as described above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the laser element includes a blue or violet or green laser.
Ferreira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the laser element includes a blue or violet or green laser ([0431] “The LIDAR Sensor System 10 comprises a First LIDAR Sensing System 40 that may comprise a Light Source 42 configured to emit electro-magnetic or other radiation 120, in particular a continuous-wave or pulsed laser radiation in the blue and/or infrared wavelength range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the distance measurement system of Chu in view of Habgood with the blue laser of Ferreira for reduced absorption through water (Embry (US 20100141928 A1): [0057] “The light source should be transparent for the medium of interest. For water, this is primarily the visible spectrum, while for blood this would be red or near-infrared.”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN C. GRANT whose telephone number is (571)272-0402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571)270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN C. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645