DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3B, reference number 130 should be changed to reference number 140 to correspond to OPA system 140 in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 4 line 2 of the specification submitted on 9/8/2022, "antennae 138" should be "antennae 136".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “…a different light detecting characteristic that each of the at least…” should be “…a different light detecting characteristic than each of the at least…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at least one pair of avalanche photodiode detectors" in on page 10 line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing “at least one pair of avalanche photodiode detectors” to “at least one pair of non-avalanche photodiode detectors.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the controller photon origin location” is indefinite because the photon origin location could refer to the position of the emitter or the position in the field of view where a target scattered the photon. Thus, it is unclear if the controller moves the position or orientation of the emitter or corrects data collected from the photodetectors.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the controller corrects photon intensity” is indefinite because the photon intensity could refer the power of the emitted light beams or the intensity data collected by the photodetectors. Thus, it is unclear if the controller changes the intensity of the emitter or corrects intensity data collected from the photodetectors.
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)(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.
Claims 1-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eshel et al., US 20210389467 A1 ("Eshel").
Regarding claim 1, Eshel discloses an apparatus comprising a first photodiode detector positioned between at least one pair of non-avalanche photodiode detectors (Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190]: first and second photodetector 1022 may be configured to be an a SPAD, an APD, or PIN photodiode, or any other type of photodetector where first and second photodetectors can be chosen to be different types of photodetectors), each detector connected to a controller configured to activate at least one detector to sense a target positioned downrange from the first photodiode detector (Fig. 10, processor 1018, objects 1051 and 1052, Paragraph [0177], [0179]-[0180], [0199]).
Regarding claim 2, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first photodiode detector is an avalanche detector (Fig. 11A, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0190]: second photodetector 1022 may be configured to be an APD).
Regarding claim 3, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first photodiode is positioned between two pair of non-avalanche photodiode detectors (Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190]).
Regarding claim 4, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first photodiode detector has a different size than the at least one pair of non-avalanche photodiode detectors (Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190], [0192]).
Regarding claim 5, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one pair of non-avalanche detectors are positioned on opposite sides of the first photodiode detector (Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190]).
Regarding claim 6, Eshel discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein an emitter is connected to the controller and sends light beams downrange, as directed by the controller (Fig. 10, Light source 1002, processor 1018, Paragraph [0176], Paragraphs [0059] and [0180]).
Regarding claim 7, Eshel discloses a method comprising: positioning a first photodiode detector between at least one pair of non- avalanche photodiode detectors, each detector connected to a controller (Fig. 10, processor 1018, [0179]-[0180], [0199]; Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190]: first and second photodetector 1022 may be configured to be an a SPAD, an APD, or PIN photodiode, or any other type of photodetector where first and second photodetectors can be chosen to be different types of photodetectors); sending light beams downrange from an emitter connected to the controller (Fig. 10, Light source 1002, processor 1018, Paragraph [0176], Paragraphs [0059] and [0180]); and sensing a target positioned downrange of the first photodiode detector with at least one detector (Fig. 10, photodetection sensor 1006, objects 1051 and 1052, Paragraph [0177]).
Regarding claim 8, Eshel discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the controller concurrently activates the first photodiode detector and the at least one pair of avalanche photodiode detectors to sense the target (Fig. 10, processor 1018, Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, a second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0197]).
Regarding claim 9, Eshel discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the controller activates only the first photodiode detector to sense the target (Fig. 10, processor 1018, Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, a second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0195]).
Regarding claim 11, Eshel discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the controller selects which detector to activate to sense the target in accordance with a predetermined performance strategy directed to increase a speed of target sensing (Fig. 10 processor 1018, Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, a second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0187]: a photodetector with a shorter recovery time can detect targets at a faster rate).
Regarding claim 12, Eshel discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the controller selects which detector to activate to sense the target in accordance with a predetermined reliability strategy directed to increase accuracy of target sensing (Fig. 10 processor 1018, Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, a second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0175], [0187]).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Pacala et al., US 20190056497 A1 (“Pacala”).
Regarding claim 10, Eshel discloses the method of claim 7.
Eshel does not teach: wherein the controller selects which detector to activate to sense the target in accordance with a predetermined power strategy directed to conserve power consumption.
However, Pacala teaches an arrangement of photodetectors where the photodetectors are divided into two groups and the group of photodetectors on the perimeter have their power level reduced to save power consumption (Fig. 32, photodetectors 3222, photodetectors 3212, Paragraph [0395]-[0396]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Eshel’s first and second photodiodes by configuring either the first or second photodiodes to operate with a reduced power level, which is disclosed by Eshel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to save power consumption, as suggested by Pacala (Paragraph [0396]).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Kudla et al., US 20200386876 A1 (“Kudla”).
Regarding claim 13, Eshel discloses a method comprising: positioning a first photodiode detector between at least one pair of non- avalanche photodiode detectors (Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185], [0190]: first and second photodetector 1022 may be configured to be an a SPAD, an APD, or PIN photodiode, or any other type of photodetector where first and second photodetectors can be chosen to be different types of photodetectors), each detector connected to a controller (Fig. 10, processor 1018, [0179]-[0180]); sending light beams downrange from an emitter connected to the controller (Fig. 10, Light source 1002, processor 1018, Paragraph [0176], [0180]); […]; and sensing a target positioned downrange of the first photodiode detector with at least one detector (Fig. 10, objects 1051 and 1052, photodetection sensor 1006, Paragraph [0177]).
Eshel does not teach: conducting, with the controller, a diagnostic mode with at least the first photodiode detector.
However, Kudla teaches a method that determines the misalignment between a transmitter and receiver and calibrates the system by applying corrections to the transmitter (Fig. 7, method 700, operation 705-735, Paragraph [0104]-[0108]; Fig. 4A-B, receiving line RL, target pixel column 15T, Paragraph [0085]-[0086]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eshel’s LIDAR system by a method to determine misalignment between the photodetectors and emitter and recalibrate the system, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the diagnostic mode measures light beam alignment in real-time (Kudla, Fig. 7, method 700, Paragraph [0108]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eshel’s LIDAR system by a method to determine misalignment between the photodetectors and emitter and recalibrate the system, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the controller corrects photon origin location in response to the diagnostic mode (Kudla, Fig. 7, method 700, operation 725, Paragraph [0107], Paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eshel’s LIDAR system by a method to determine misalignment between the photodetectors and emitter and recalibrate the system, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the controller corrects photon intensity in response to the diagnostic mode (Kudla, Fig. 4A, receiving line RL, target pixel column 15T, Paragraph [0090]; Fig. 7, method 700, operation 725, Paragraph [0107]: by applying the correction factor, the intensity of light that is received in a pixel column changes).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eshel’s LIDAR system by a method to determine misalignment between the photodetectors and emitter and recalibrate the system, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13.
Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, does not teach: wherein the controller adjusts at least one detector to correct a misalignment in response to the diagnostic mode.
However, Kulda teaches an alternative method that determines the misalignment between a transmitter and receiver and calibrates the system by reassigning receiver pixels (Fig. 5A-B, Paragraph [0095]; Fig. 9, method 900, operations 905-925, Paragraph [0114]-[0115]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the calibration method disclosed by Eshel, as modified by Kudla, by applying corrections to the receiver instead of the transmitter, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the adjustment is conducted while sensing at least one target positioned downrange of the first photodiode detector (Kudla, Fig. 9, method 900, operation 905, Paragraph [0114]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the calibration method disclosed by Eshel, as modified by Kudla, by applying corrections to the receiver instead of the transmitter, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the first photodiode detector has a different light detecting characteristic that each of the at least one pair of non- avalanche photodiode detectors (Eshel, Fig. 11A, first photodetector 1021, second photodetector 1022, Paragraph [0181], [0185]).
Regarding claim 20, Eshel, as modified in view of Kudla, discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the controller selectively activates detectors to determine an alignment of photons emitted by one or more emitters (Kudla, Fig. 4A-B, target pixel column 15T, Paragraph [0067]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eshel’s LIDAR system by a method to determine misalignment between the photodetectors and emitter and recalibrate the system, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce or prevent such misalignments, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 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 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645