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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 8/05/2022 and 10/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and have been considered.
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, 2, 4, 6, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudla (US 20200386876 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kudla discloses a LIDAR device (Fig. 1A, LIDAR scanning system 100a) comprising:
a light transmitting unit including a plurality of laser transmission channels for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object in an allocated transmission time slot (Fig. 1A, illumination unit 10 used to scan the field of view; Fig. 4A and [0088] there are 8 light sources and they are emitted at a slightly different time offset, such that the light is incident onto the correct pixels in the target column 15T);
a light receiving unit (Fig. 1A, photodetector array 15) including a plurality of laser reception channels for receiving the laser light reflected by the external object in a reception time slot allocated to correspond to the transmission time slot ([0048] activation of individual photodiodes are synchronized with the light pulses emitted by the illumination unit; [0067-0069] the individual pixels are mapped to their corresponding light source and the position of the scanning mirror, such that they are activated when they are expected to detect a returning pulse) wherein N laser reception channels are allocated to each of the reception time slots (Fig. 4A, each of the light sources, 1 through 8, are mapped to 2 pixels on the detector); and
a signal amplification unit configured to sequentially amplify the laser light received by the light receiving unit according to an order of the reception time slots (Fig. 2, receiver circuit 24, which is in the receiver unit 22 of the lidar system; [0073] signals pass through an amplifier before being received by the ADC), and having N channels allocated in one-to-one correspondence with the N laser reception channels for each of the reception time slots ([0070-0071] Activated pixels are selectively coupled by an analog multiplexer to the receiver circuit. Since pixels that are coupled to the circuit are ‘active’, and N pixels are active during a given time slot, there are N channels in a one-to-one correspondence with the N active pixels).
Regarding Claim 2: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kudla further discloses further comprising a transmitting optical system arranged on a transmission path of the laser light transmitted from the light transmitting unit (Fig. 1A, light from the light sources 10 pass through transmitter optics 11), and configured to form an angle between the laser light and a horizontal axis on the transmission path differently for each of the laser transmission channels ([0031] each pixel is mapped directly to a transmission position of the scanning mirror and the transmission angle. This means each of the transmitters must form a different angle with respect to the horizontal axis. See Fig. 1A, where the light from the three different sources are directed to different positions in the vertical scanning line).
Regarding Claim 4: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 2. Kudla further discloses: further comprising a receiving optical system arranged on a reception path through which the light receiving unit receives the laser light (Fig. 1A, reflected light returns through the second optical component 14, which directs the light onto the photodetector array 15), and configured to form directional angles of the plurality of laser reception channels provided in the light receiving unit differently for each of the laser reception channels ([0032-0033] each light source is mapped to a pixel row(s). Each pixel is mapped to a particular transmission angle in the scan cycle and also to its light source. Since each of the transmitted beams are directed to a different vertical field of view, the returning beams are directed to the detector array differently based on the transmission angle and the position of the scanning mirror).
Regarding Claim 6: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kulda further discloses wherein the transmission time slot and the reception time slot are allocated so that T time slots scan a vertical range once (Fig. 1A, in the field of view, a vertical scanning line is scanned once; [0088] and Fig. 4A, the 8 light sources are mapped to the receiving line RL. A timing offset is applied to each of the light sources such that the light is incident on the target pixel column 15T, correcting the angular offset. This results in 8 different emission time slots),
the light transmitting unit includes T laser transmission channels to which any one of the T transmission time slots is allocated without overlapping (Fig. 4A and [0088] each light source is offset by a different amount, so for each of the 8 light sources, there is a separate time slot), and
the light receiving unit includes T x N laser reception channels, and N reception channels may be allocated to each of the reception time slots without overlapping (Fig. 4A, each light source is mapped to two pixels per receiving line of the receiving array. Receiver array includes 8 x 2 reception channels because there are 16 pixels in the receiving line, which means the entire receiver array, which has multiple receiving lines, includes at least 16 pixels).
Regarding Claim 12: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kudla further discloses comprising a signal detection unit configured to detect a signal related to distance calculation from a signal output value of the signal amplification unit (Fig. 2 receiver circuit 24 and controller 23 have signal processing circuitry that generate time of flight and a 3D point cloud; [0066] processing circuitry can be TDCs or ADCs).
Regarding Claim 13: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 12. Kudla further discloses wherein the signal detection unit detects the signal related to the distance calculation in an ADC method ([0066] and [0052-0053] the signal detection can be performed by ADCs in an ADC method).
Regarding Claim 14: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 12. Kudla further discloses wherein the signal detection unit detects the signal related to the distance calculation in a TDC method ([0066] and [0050-0051] signal detection can be performed by TDCs in a TDC method).
Regarding Claim 15: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kudla further discloses further comprising a scanner including a transmission mirror for reflecting the laser light transmitted from the light transmitting unit to the outside (Figs. 1A and 2, MEMS mirror in the transmitter unit 21), and a reception mirror for reflecting the laser light reflected from the outside to the light receiving unit ([0058] lidar scanning system 100a includes a digital micromirror device that receives the reflected light pulse that directs the reflected light pulse onto the photodetector array and to the pixel(s) it is mapped to).
Regarding Claim 16: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 15. Kudla further discloses: wherein the scanner rotates about a vertical axis (Fig. 1A and [0041] there is a single scanning axis, and MEMS mirror 12 oscillates about the scanning axis 13 to scan horizontally. This means the axis 13 the MEMS mirror 12 rotates about must be vertical).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Curatu (US 20180284285 A1). Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 2. Kudla does not expressly teach that the transmitting optical system forms an angle between the plurality of laser transmission channels provided in the light transmitting unit and the horizontal axis in a range of -6 to 6 degrees.
Curatu teaches the scanning of a field of a regard where the vertical field of regard may be greater than 10 or 15 degrees, and where the vertical range is with respect to reference line 246 in the center of the field of regard (Fig. 5 and [0091]). Since the field of regard may be greater than or equal to 10 or 15 degrees, this includes a field of regard that is 12 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kudla, such that the vertical field of view is 12 degrees and centered about a central axis, as taught by Curatu. Modifying the field of view such that the vertical field of view is -6 to +6 degrees could be motivated by design incentives that may prompt a variation in the field of view of the LIDAR device. Since Curatu teaches a system that can have a vertical field of regard that can be anything from 2 degrees to 45 degrees, this variation in the field of view would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Nauen (US 20200319319 A1). Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kudla does not disclose wherein the transmission time slot and the reception time slot are set to 2 to 3 μs.
Nauen teaches a system the transmission time slot and the reception time slot are set to 2 to 3 μs ([0010] the measurement time window is two microseconds in length).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device disclosed by Kudla, such that the detection intervals are 2 μs, as taught by Nauen. This would be beneficial because a time measurement window of 2 μs would make the maximum distance measurable by the LIDAR device 300 meters (Nauen, [0010]).
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Hillard (US 20200132848 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 6. However, Kudla does not expressly teach wherein T is the same as N.
However, Hillard teaches a system where there are T transmitters and each transmitter has N receiver channels, and T and N are the same number ([0042] and Fig. 5A, there are 16 emitters in the emitter array and each emitter is split into 16 individual beams. In the receiver array, there can be one receiver 310 for each beam, making 16 receivers for each of the 16 transmitters).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector array disclosed by Kudla, such that the number of pixels allocated to each transmitter channel is the same as the number of transmitters as taught by Hillard. Having a detector array with a larger number of pixels is merely a different design option and is a predictable variation in detector arrays of lidar systems. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F.
Regarding Claim 9: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 1. Kudla further discloses wherein the transmission time slots and the reception time slots are allocated so that T time slots scan a vertical range once (Fig. 1A, in the field of view, a vertical scanning line is scanned once; [0088] and Fig. 4A, the 8 light sources are mapped to the receiving line RL. A timing offset is applied to each of the light sources such that the light is incident on the target pixel column 15T, correcting the angular offset. This results in 8 different emission time slots). Kudla does not expressly disclose the light transmitting unit includes T x N laser transmission channels, and N laser transmission channels are allocated to each of the transmission time slots without overlapping, and the light receiving unit includes N laser reception channels, and the N laser reception channels are allocated to each of the reception time slots.
However, Hillard teaches the light transmitting unit includes T x N laser transmission channels, and N laser transmission channels are allocated to each of the transmission time slots without overlapping ([0041] and Fig. 5B, emitter array 111 has 16 emitters which are each split into 16 individual light beams directed toward a separate sub pixel of the field of view, forming 16 channels for each transmitter. There are 16 receivers in the receiver array, arranged in a line that matches the pixels of the far field image. Both T and N are 16), and
the light receiving unit includes N laser reception channels, and the N laser reception channels are allocated to each of the reception time slots (Fig. 5B and [0041] there are 16 receivers in the receiver array).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of transmitter channels and receiver channels disclosed by Kudla, such that there are 16 transmitters, each being split into 16 individual beams, and 16 detectors in the detector array, as taught by Hillard. This would simply be a modification in the number of transmission and reception channels and would not change the transmission scheme where there are discrete transmission and reception time slots as disclosed by Kudla. This modification would be a design variation in the number of transmitter and receiver channels, and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 10: Kudla, in view of Hillard, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 9. In this combination, Hillard further teaches wherein T is the same as N (Fig. 5B, there are 16 emitters and 16 receiver pixels, and each of the emitters is split into 16 different beams. T = 16 and N = 16).
Regarding Claim 17: Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 16. Kudla does not expressly teach wherein the transmission mirror forms a horizontal divergence angle of the laser light transmitted from the light transmitting unit to be 0.10 to 0.12 degrees, and the reception mirror forms a horizontal viewing angle of the laser light reflected to the light receiving unit to be 0.11 to 0.13 degrees.
However, Hillard teaches this limitation in paragraph [0037] and with Fig. 8B, where the alignment angle is selected to minimize minimum single emitter separation, or the largest gap between swept regions, and the minimum single emitter separation achievable can be 0.05-0.2 degrees, for example. As illustrated in Fig. 8B and described in paragraph [0050], each detector has a 3mm wide active region and a minimum single emitter separation of 0.111 degrees. This falls within the range of 0.10-0.12 and 0.11-0.13 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the architecture of the LIDAR device disclosed by Kudla, such that the horizontal divergence and viewing angle of the transmitter and receiver respectfully, is 0.111 degrees, as taught by Hillard. This architecture, taught by Hillard, is beneficial because the device has a sensitivity that enables object detection to a range of up to 295 m (Hillard, [0050]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Schwarz (US 20190277950 A1). Kudla discloses the LIDAR device of claim 6. Kudla does not expressly disclose wherein each of the laser transmission channels includes an edge emitting laser diode.
However, Schwarz teaches this limitation in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0030], where the transmitter unit 1 has multiple radiation sources 2, which are edge emitters.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitters disclosed by Kudla, by replacing them with edge emitters, as taught by Schwarz. This would be a simple substitution of one type of light source for another type of light source and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla, in view of Hillard, and further in view of Dumais (US 20190369254 A1). Kudla, in view of Hillard, teaches the LIDAR device of claim 9. However, Kudla does not expressly disclose, wherein each of the laser transmission channels includes a VCSEL diode.
However, Dumais teaches this limitation with Fig. 1 and paragraph [0027], where the light source is an array of VCSELs.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmitter channels in the device taught by Kudla and Hillard, such that each of the transmitter channels has a VCSEL. This would be a simple substitution of one type of transmitter unit for another type of transmitter unit that is made up of an array of VCSELs (See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645