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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1).
Claim 1: Finkelstein teaches an apparatus comprising
a controller connected to a first emitter ([0070]),
a second emitter ([0071]),
and at least one detector ([0055]),
the controller configured to identify at least one downrange target with pixelated operation of the first emitter with a resolution chosen by the controller ([0071] - switching due to determination by processor); .
Claim 2: Finkelstein teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first emitter is a phase modulated continuous wave emitter ([0074] - modulating phase of emitter and [0055] - continuous wave).
Claim 4: Finkelstein teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first emitter has a matching configuration as the second emitter ([0055] - lasers emit same wavelength).
Claim 6: Finkelstein teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first emitter is phase modulated and the second emitter is frequency modulated ([0057] - controlling modulation frequency).
Claim 7: Finkelstein teaches a method comprising:
activating a first emitter, with a controller, to transmit light beams downrange to provide pixelated detection of at least one target with a first resolution ([0070]);
altering the first resolution to a second resolution with the controller in response to a change in accuracy of target identification ([0071] - switching due to determination by processor);
and detecting a target positioned downrange of the first emitter with the second resolution ([0071]).
Claim 9: Finkelstein teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising activating a second emitter to provide the second resolution ([0032] and [0071]).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the first emitter and second emitter operate sequentially to provide the second resolution ([0071] - switching to second resolution).
Claim 11: Finkelstein teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first emitter and second emitter operate sequentially to provide the second resolution ([0071] - switching to second resolution).
Claim 14: Finkelstein teaches a method comprising:
activating a first emitter, with a controller, to send light beams downrange with a pixelated first resolution ([0032] and [0070]);
detecting photons with a detector connected to the controller, the photons returning from one or more downrange targets ([0055]);
generating a strategy, with the controller, that prescribes operational conditions to affect a theme chosen by the controller; identifying, with the controller, a trigger condition from the sensed photons; altering at least one operational condition of the first emitter, in accordance with the strategy, in response to the trigger condition ([0071] - switching due to determination by processor);
and activating a second emitter, with the controller, to provide a second resolution ([0032] and [0071]).
Claim 15: Finkelstein teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the theme is power consumption savings ([0052]).
Claim 16: Finkelstein teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the theme is downrange target detection reliability ([0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1) in view of Hilde (US 20080252874 A1).
Claim 3: Finkelstein teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Finkelstein does not teach, but Hilde does teach wherein the resolution is characterized as a distance between planes of pixels corresponding with light beams sent downrange by the first emitter ([0025] – distance between row planes defines vertical resolution).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the planes and vertical resolution, as taught by Hilde, in the apparatus as taught by Finkelstein, because such planes are well known in the art, and it would be obvious that distance between measurements defines resolution (and thus distance between pixel planes defines resolution).
Claim 8: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 7. Finkelstein does not teach, but Hilde does teach wherein the first resolution has a larger distance between planes of pixels than the second resolution ([0025] – distance between row planes defines vertical resolution – thus for larger resolution, the distance between pixel planes is increased).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the planes and vertical resolution, as taught by Hilde, in the apparatus as taught by Finkelstein, because such planes are well known in the art, and it would be obvious that distance between measurements defines resolution (and thus distance between pixel planes defines resolution).
Claims 5, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1) in view of Christmas (US 20190353759 A1).
Claim 5: Finkelstein teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the first emitter has a dissimilar configuration then the second emitter ([0104] and [0131] – coarse and fine resolutions use light of different wavelengths).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the different wavelengths, as taught by Christmas, because different wavelengths allow for detection of different objects (such as those of different sizes), thus increasing the range of objects detected.
Claim 10: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 9. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the first emitter and second emitter are concurrently active to provide the second resolution ([0104]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the concurrent scans, as taught by Christmas, in the method as taught by Finkelstein, because, as Christmas teaches, this allows both scans to capture the same information ([0104]). This thus makes comparison of the two scans more accurate.
Claim 12: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 9. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the first emitter and second emitter operate sequentially to provide the second resolution ([0104] and [0131] – coarse and fine resolutions use light of different wavelengths).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the different wavelengths, as taught by Christmas, because different wavelengths allow for detection of different objects (such as those of different sizes), thus increasing the range of objects detected.
Claim 18: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 14. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the at least one operational condition is pulse width ([0104] and [0131] – coarse and fine resolutions use light of different wavelengths – obvious that different wavelength means different pulse width).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the different wavelengths, as taught by Christmas, because different wavelengths allow for detection of different objects (such as those of different sizes), thus increasing the range of objects detected.
Claim 19: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 14. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the at least one operational condition is wavelength ([0104] and [0131] – coarse and fine resolutions use light of different wavelengths).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the different wavelengths, as taught by Christmas, because different wavelengths allow for detection of different objects (such as those of different sizes), thus increasing the range of objects detected.
Claim 20: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 14. Finkelstein does not teach, but Christmas does teach, wherein the at least one operational condition is a wavelength of the light beams sent downrange ([0104] and [0131] – coarse and fine resolutions use light of different wavelengths).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the different wavelengths, as taught by Christmas, because different wavelengths allow for detection of different objects (such as those of different sizes), thus increasing the range of objects detected.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1) in view of Wheeler (US 20200081134 A1).
Claim 13: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 12. Finkelstein does not teach, but Wheeler does teach, wherein the controller balances accuracy with latency by providing less than a best possible accuracy and less than a best possible latency for the first emitter ([0025]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the low latency high accuracy (and thus balancing latency and accuracy) as taught by Wheeler, in the method as taught by Finkelstein, because this allows for safe navigation of a vehicle (see Wheeler [0025]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 20230393245 A1) in view of Breed (US 20020198632 A1).
Claim 17: Finkelstein teaches the method of Claim 14. Finkelstein does not teach, but Breed does teach, wherein the theme is target detection speed ([0562] – parallel processing increases processing speed).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the parallel processing and higher processing speed, as taught by Breed, because, as Breed teaches, this allows for image analysis using the entire image ([0562]) and thus a more accurate final image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645