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 7/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalscheur et al., US 20160245919 A1 ("Kalscheur").
Regarding claim 1, Kalscheur discloses an apparatus comprising: an emitter of a LiDAR system configured to emit light pulses at a first resolution within a baseline (Fig. 1, light emitter 102, Paragraph [0037]; Fig. 7, step 702, Paragraph [0097]), first field of view (FoV) (Fig. 4, 410, scan 406A, Paragraph [0073]-[0074]); and a selectable optical element that, in response to an activation signal, diverts at least a portion of the emitted light pulses to a reduced, second FoV within the first FoV at a corresponding higher, second resolution (Fig. 2A-B, lens element assembly 204, Paragraph [0053]-[0056], Fig. 4, 440, fields 432, 434, scans 443, 445, Paragraph [0077]; Fig. 7, step 722 to 726, Paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 2, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical element comprises a refractive optical lens (Fig. 2A-B, first lens element 206, a second lens element 208, Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an actuator that mechanically moves the selectable optical element to receive the at least a portion of the emitted light pulses (Fig. 2A-B, actuator 207, Paragraph [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein all of the emitted pulses from the emitter are directed to the second FoV so that no pulses are directed outside the second FoV (Fig. 4, 440, fields 432, 434, scans 443, 445, Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 8, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light pulses are rasterized along orthogonal x-y axes in rows and columns in both the first FoV and the second FoV (Fig. 4, 410 scan 406A, 440, scans of the fields 432, 434, Paragraphs [0073], [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second FoV is selected based on range information obtained using a detector that detects reflected pulses from the first FoV (Fig. 4, 430, objects 403, 405, Paragraph [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprises a control circuit configured to adaptively switch in and out the optical element to cyclically scan the second FoV and scan the entirety of the first FoV in sequence (Fig. 5, lens element control module 512, scanner control module 504, Paragraph [0081]-[0082], Fig. 7, steps 702 – 708, steps 720,722, 726, Paragraph [0096]-[0104]).
Claims 13 – 16 and 19 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Ledbetter et al., US 20200150247 A1 (“Ledbetter”).
Regarding claim 4, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Kalscheur does not teach: further comprising a rotatable polygon that selectively directs the at least a portion of the emitted light pulses from the emitter to the selectable optical element.
However, Ledbetter discloses a polygon mirror that has multiple reflective sides. The polygon mirror can scan signals from a light source (Fig. 7, polygon 702, Paragraph [0054]).
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 Kalscheur’s emitter by adding a polygon mirror, which is disclosed by Ledbetter, between the emitter and the lens element assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to scan signals delivered from a light source, as suggested by Ledbetter (Paragraph [0054]).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Chong, US 10838047 B2 (“Chong”).
Regarding claim 5, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Kalscheur does not teach: further comprising a solid state array integrated circuit device that selectively directs the portion of the emitted light pulses from the emitter to the refractive optical lens.
However, Chong teaches a light source that emits light to a beam directing device and through a projection device. The beam directing device may be a 1xN switch or a 1xN splitter. (Fig. 10, tunable laser 1020, beam directing device 1006, projection device 1008, Col. 18 lines 26-43).
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 Kalscheur’s emitter by adding a beam directing device, which is disclosed by Chong, between the emitter and the lens element assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to define a field of view such that any object located in the field of view can be accurately measured, as suggested by Chong (Col. 18 line 44 – Col. 19 line 10).
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Campbell et al., US 20190250254 A1 (“Campbell”).
Regarding claim 7, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Kalscheur does not teach: wherein a first portion of the emitted pulses from the emitter are directed to the second FoV and a remaining second portions of the emitted pulses continued to be directed to the first FoV outside the second FoV at a reduced density.
However, Campbell teaches a lidar system that may alternate between performing one or more scans that cover a full field of regard and on or more targeted scans that cover a sub-region of the full field of regard. (Fig. 11, scan pattern 200, targeted scan 800, Paragraph [0080]). Campbell also teaches that the standard and targeted scans may be performed in one operation (Fig. 11, scan pattern 200, targeted scan 800, Paragraph [0083]).
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 Kalscheur’s method for dynamically adjusting a divergence of a light beam by alternating between scans of the full field of view and a smaller higher resolution scan or simultaneously scanning both fields of view, which is disclosed by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain additional information about the target, as suggested by Campbell (Paragraph [0080]).
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Templeton et al., US 9383753 B1 (“Templeton”).
Regarding claim 10, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 9.
Kalscheur does not teach: wherein the first FoV covers at least one target at a first distance from the emitter, and wherein the second FoV is selected to cover an area within the first FoV that is at a greater second distance from the emitter to provide a long range targeting mode of operation.
However, Templeton teaches a process for identifying regions of interest from a LIDAR point cloud, where the region of interest is directed to perceived objects located at a distance beyond a threshold distance. (Fig. 7D, flowchart 740, Col. 27 line 66 – Col. 28 line 12).
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 Kalscheur’s process for identifying regions of interest by locating objects beyond a threshold distance for a high resolution study, which is disclosed by Templeton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to characterize objects sooner than otherwise possible, which enables object avoidance to be undertaken sooner, as suggested by Templeton (Col. 28 lines 22-31).
Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalscheur in view of Kirillov, US 20200284882 A1 (“Kirillov”).
Regarding claim 12, Kalscheur discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Kalscheur does not teach: wherein the emitter is configured to generate a first set of pulses having a first set of waveform characteristics that are not directed through the optical element and a second set of pulses having a different, second set of waveform characteristics that are directed through the optical element.
However, Kirillov teaches an optical transmitter that may use a different wavelengths or intensities for illuminating a first and second field of view (Fig. 1, transmitter 110, field of view 105, portion 106 of the field of view, first sub-regions 101-1, . . . , 101-N, second sub-regions 102-1, . . . 102-N, Paragraph [0043])
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 Kalscheur’s emitter by emitting light at different wavelengths when scanning the first and second field of view, which is disclosed by Kirillov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an increased flexibility and an increased operability compared to conventional LIDAR systems, as suggested by Kirillov (Paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wan et al., US 20160182788 A1 discloses a lens positioned over a light emitter. The lens is attached to multiple actuators that change the beam size and scans the beams.
Ko et al., US 9918073 B2 discloses a lens positioned over a light emitter. The lens is attached to multiple actuators that change the beam size and scans the beams.
Richards et al., US 20210311171 A1 discloses two optical elements that are attached to actuators that move the optical elements in order to scan light from a light source.
Millischer et al., US 20210389426 A1 discloses collimation lenses that are attached to actuators that move the optical elements in order to scan light from a light source.
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
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100