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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, comprising claims 21-33 and 40, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that while the Species are not obvious variants of one another, but they recite common structural features. This is not found persuasive because Species 1 claims a non-specular target and associated reflection (backscatter) and Species II claims a specular target with associated reflection (regular reflection). Specular and non-specular reflection have different status in the art of target detection, with specular reflection involving a mirror-like reflection of optical radiation reflected at the same angle to the surface normal as the incident angle, following the law of reflection. Conversely, non-specular reflection is characterized as backscatter that is diffuse reflection, i.e. wherein optical radiation is scattered in many directions. Therefore, the status in the art of target detection is that reflection at specular vs. non-specular targets differ in the direction of reflected radiation, the mechanism (specular reflection follows a geometric law and non-specular reflection is diffuse backscatter that is dependent on characteristics of transmitted signals; and finally, that specular reflection is a specific and coherent radiation return whereas non-specular backscatter is diffuse and without precise direction. Thus, while both types of reflection return energy to the source, their coherence, angular distribution and origin differ. While the instant claims may include the same or similar structural components, the instant claims specifically distinguish between specular and non-specular target reflection.
However, while the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument of traverse, the prior art search did yield a reference that reasonably includes the alternatives of specular and non-specular reflection of a scene, rendering the requirement for restriction moot.
As such, the requirement for restriction dated 06/18/2026 is withdrawn in response to result(s) from the Examiner’s prior art search proving no search burden. All claims will be examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims include a limitation similar to “a second active sensor adapted to receive a second backscatter signal associated with the wavelength 1” of which the Examiner believes the “1” should be corrected to read “A”, since only one wavelength A is recited in these claims. Claim interpretation will be based on this assumption. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 23, 26 and 35 recites “Ssub1,I” which should be corrected to read “Ssub1,i”.
Claims 28 and 37 introduce first intensity as changing to Ssuba and second intensity as Ssubb, wherein those intensities were originally established as Ssub1,I and Ssub2,i. Appropriate correction is required to make the intensity designations consistent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the physical and optical relationship between the active sensor(s) and the focal plane array as claimed. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a light source configured to illuminate” – the specification indicates this could be a single laser, alternative light source such as solar illumination, or a single solar illuminator par. 0047, but fails to recite or describe necessary structure;
“a first active sensor adapted to receive…and to measure” and “a second active sensor adapted to receive and to measure” – recited only at par. 0050 without structural detail;
“a focal plane array adapted to determine” – recited at 0003, 0025 and 0035 without structural detail.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See 112(b) rejection for BRI of these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 25 and 34 set forth some combination of a first active sensor, a second active sensor, and a focal plane array. None of the claims, the specification nor the drawings provide the description necessary for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the physical and optical relationship among those components. The drawings appear to only show either the active sensors or the focal plane array, but no figures of those components together. The specification does not appear to describe the active sensor(s) and the focal plane array in such a way that explains their physical and optical relationship, and in fact, the specification appears to only recite the active sensor(s) and the focal plane array in completely separate portions with no support as to how they are intended to be related. And the claims merely recite each of the components with no indication of how they are intended to be related.
Claims 23, 26 and 35 set forth the formula for calculating the ratio of signal intensities, but it is not evident or obvious from the disclosure how this ratio is both determined and simplified and additionally, how sensor displacement from one another is considered in the formula, such that the distance between sensors would have to be different based on a perpendicular measurement with respect to the distance from sensors to target, since the distance from each sensor to the target is indicated as being the same and the formula merely requires the singular sensor to target distance to be added to the distance between sensors, but the two distance measurements are in different coordinates. E.g. R in the claim is on x-axis and delta in the claim is on the y-axis, since based on the claimed formula, R must indicate that each sensor’s distance to the target is identical and that their displacement does not merely extend R, but rather involves a different coordinate consideration.
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 21-40 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.
Claims 21 and 34 recite a first active sensor, a second active sensor, and a focal plane array. Claim 25 recites a first active sensor and a focal plane array. The claims are rendered indefinite because it is unclear from the instant disclosure whether the active sensors are intended to comprise the focal plane array or if the focal plane array is intended to be a completely separate and subsequent detector. If the active sensors are intended to comprise the focal plane array, the claims should be re-written to reflect proper antecedent basis. If the active sensors and the focal plane array are intended to be separate and distinct detectors, then the claims and/or disclosure should clearly describe this relationship, as no optical or physical relationship between the active sensor(s) and the focal plane array appears to be disclosed. For purposes of examination, the active sensors will be interpreted as comprising the focal plane array; and the focal plane array will be interpreted as an avalanche photodiode array.
Claim 25 further recites “a movable active sensor” and “the first active sensor” which are lacking proper antecedent basis.
Claims 23, 26 and 35 define a variable “δ” but the variable is absent from the formula claimed. The claims further set forth the formula for calculating the ratio of signal intensities, but it is not evident or obvious from the disclosure how this ratio is both determined and simplified and additionally how sensor displacement from one another is considered in the formula, such that the distance between sensors would have to be different based on a perpendicular measurement with respect to the distance from sensors to target, since the distance from each sensor to the target is indicated as being the same and the formula merely requires the singular sensor to target distance to be added to the distance between sensors, but the two distance measurements are in different coordinates. E.g. R in the claim is on x-axis and delta in the claim is on the y-axis, since based on the claimed formula, R must indicate that each sensor’s distance to the target is identical and that their displacement does not merely extend R, but rather involves a different coordinate consideration.
Claims 24, 27, 36, 40 recite “a change rate” which is indefinite because it is not defined or explained in the disclosure, nor are examples given of what Applicant intends change rate to mean. For example, change rate is known in the art as being one of: the rate of change of a signal’s value or the rate at which signal characteristics change. Further, provided what is known in the art and given the formula as claimed, it is further unclear how one of the known definitions related to “change rate” would apply to the claimed formula, as it is not readily clear or obvious. For this reason, the limitation is further indefinite because its formulaic representation does not readily appear to reflect one of the known definitions of “change rate”. Additionally, the formula in claims 24 and 27 recite a variable “R” without explanation of what “R” is.
Claims 28-31, 33, 37-39 recite “the first wavelength” and “the second wavelength”, however, only one wavelength, “wavelength A” has been established in the claims, with the assumption that “the wavelength 1” recited in the independent claims was mistyped and intended to be “the wavelength A”, since it referred back to “the wavelength” rather than establishing a new and distinct second wavelength. Therefore, the claims are indefinite because is not readily understood or obvious as to where and how a second wavelength is suddenly considered.
Claims 21, 25 and 34 include limitations “a light source configured to illuminate” (BRI: diode laser, fiber laser, or semiconductor laser, all commonly used in 3D imaging applications), “a first active sensor adapted to receive…and to measure” (BRI: avalanche photodetector within the focal plane array) and “a second active sensor adapted to receive and to measure” (BRI: another avalanche photodetector within the focal plane array), and “a focal plane array adapted to determine” (BRI: avalanche photodiode array commonly used in 3D imaging applications) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner note: The limitations at issue under 112 will be interpreted to the best of the examiner’s ability, absent the necessary information to render a clear determination of claim scope, including necessary definitions and clarity of the claim limitations. The prior art rejection that follows includes what examiner believes to be the broadest reasonable interpretations, if possible to determine, of the limitations at issue.
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(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fried (US 2016/0356890).
21: Fried teaches A three-dimensional (3-D) imaging system for determining range to a target [0028-29 lidar system to image a scene using a 3D coordinate system] and comprising:
a light source configured to illuminate a non-specular target with a wavelength A [0052 light source 110 illuminates a scene 20; 0058 wavelength emitted is dependent on sensitivity of focal plane array 130; 0104 scene scatters light, indicating non-specular characteristic]
characterized by a reflectivity from the non-specular target [0052 scene 20 reflects or scatters the incident light pulses 10 back to the lidar system 100; 0104 scene scatters light, indicating non-specular characteristic];
a first active sensor adapted to receive a first backscatter signal associated with the wavelength A [0052 focal plane array 130 comprising a plurality of sensing elements 132; 0058 the emitted wavelength from laser source 110 is received at the focal plane array 130)];
a second active sensor adapted to receive a second backscatter signal associated with the wavelength A [0052 focal plane array 130 comprising a plurality of sensing elements 132; 0058 the emitted wavelength from laser source 110 is received at the focal plane array 130], the first active sensor adapted to measure a first intensity S1,i of the first backscatter signal and the second active sensor adapted to measure a second intensity S2,i of the second backscatter signal [0074 focal plane array 130 records intensity information for detected photons; 0104 scene scatters light, indicating backscatter]; and
a focal plane array adapted to determine a range to the target from a ratio of the first intensity S1,i and the second intensity S2,i [0193 intensity images constructed by taking ratios of return signal strength for the various measurements; 0074 focal plane array 130 records intensity information of detected photons and records time of flight of the photons (corresponding to range)].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the use of the terms “reflected/scattered” in par. 0104 indicate specular and non-specular scenes, respectively, due to the known grammar use of the forward slash to indicate things that have a close relationship or are in opposition to each other. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would most reasonably understand the terms to indicate both a close relationship (general reflection of light from a scene) and/or opposition, using “reflected” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include specular reflection and the term “scattered” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include non-specular reflection. With either interpretation, the disclosure of the prior art encompasses related general forms of reflection from a scene (which indicate specular and non-specular reflection) and more particularly, that those terms indicate the difference in the type of reflection (regular reflection as “reflected” and diffuse reflection as “scattered”) since there is no suggestion in the disclosure of Fried to indicate an advantage or desire to exclude the type of scene illuminated (such as specular or non-specular). Further, throughout the disclosure, Fried commonly uses the phrase “reflected or scattered” when referring to light returning from the scene, further indicating that different types of reflection (specular and non-specular) are intended to be included.
25: Fried teaches a three-dimensional (3-D) imaging system for determining range to a target [0028-29 lidar system to image a scene using a 3D coordinate system] and comprising:
a light source configured to illuminate a non-specular target with a wavelength A [0052 light source 110 illuminates a scene 20; 0058 wavelength emitted is dependent on sensitivity of focal plane array 130; 0104 scene scatters light, indicating non-specular characteristic]
characterized by a reflectivity from the non-specular target [0052 scene 20 reflects or scatters the incident light pulses 10 back to the lidar system 100; 0104 scene scatters light, indicating non-specular characteristic];
a movable active sensor adapted to receive a backscatter signal associated with the wavelength A [0052 focal plane array 130 comprising a plurality of sensing elements 132; 0058 the emitted wavelength from laser source 110 is received at the focal plane array 130); 0053 lidar system 100, including focal plane array 130 and sensing elements 132, is an airborne lidar mounted on an aircraft, rendering the sensor(s) onboard movable];
the first active sensor adapted to measure a first intensity S1,i of a first backscatter signal at a first position and to measure a second intensity S2,i of a second backscatter signal at a second position [0074 focal plane array records intensity information of detected photons by recording the number of photons received at each pixel via sensing elements 132 as photodiodes that detect photons; since the photodiodes are described as avalanche and not of single photon avalanche, it follows that each photodiode is adapted to received multiple photons and measure their respective intensities]; and
a focal plane array adapted to determine a range to the target from a ratio of the first intensity S1,i and the second intensity S2,i [0193 intensity images constructed by taking ratios of return signal strength for the various measurements; 0074 focal plane array 130 records intensity information of detected photons and records time of flight of the photons (corresponding to range)].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the use of the terms “reflected/scattered” in par. 0104 indicate specular and non-specular scenes, respectively, due to the known grammar use of the forward slash to indicate things that have a close relationship or are in opposition to each other. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would most reasonably understand the terms to indicate both a close relationship (general reflection of light from a scene) and/or opposition, using “reflected” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include specular reflection and the term “scattered” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include non-specular reflection. With either interpretation, the disclosure of the prior art encompasses related general forms of reflection from a scene (which indicate specular and non-specular reflection) and more particularly, that those terms indicate the difference in the type of reflection (regular reflection as “reflected” and diffuse reflection as “scattered”) since there is no suggestion in the disclosure of Fried to indicate an advantage or desire to exclude the type of scene illuminated (such as specular or non-specular). Further, throughout the disclosure, Fried commonly uses the phrase “reflected or scattered” when referring to light returning from the scene, further indicating that different types of reflection (specular and non-specular) are intended to be included.
34: Fried teaches a three-dimensional (3-D) imaging system for determining range to a specular target [0028-29 lidar system to image a scene using a 3D coordinate system; 0104 scene reflects light, indicating specular characteristic] and comprising:
a light source configured to illuminate a specular target with a wavelength A
characterized by a reflectivity from the specular target [0052 light source 110 illuminates a scene 20; 0058 wavelength emitted is dependent on sensitivity of focal plane array 130; 0104 scene reflects light, indicating specular characteristic];
a first active sensor adapted to receive a first regular reflection associated with the wavelength A [0052 focal plane array 130 comprising a plurality of sensing elements 132; 0058 the emitted wavelength from laser source 110 is received at the focal plane array 130];
a second active sensor adapted to receive a second regular reflection associated with the wavelength A [0052 focal plane array 130 comprising a plurality of sensing elements 132; 0058 the emitted wavelength from laser source 110 is received at the focal plane array 130], the first active sensor adapted to measure a first intensity S1,i of the first regular reflection and the second active sensor adapted to measure a second intensity S2,i of the second regular reflection [0074 focal plane array 130 records intensity information for detected photons; 0104 scene reflects light, indicating regular reflection]; and
a focal plane array adapted to determine a range to the target from a ratio of the first intensity S1,i and the second intensity S2,i [0193 intensity images constructed by taking ratios of return signal strength for the various measurements; 0074 focal plane array 130 records intensity information of detected photons and records time of flight of the photons (corresponding to range)].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the use of the terms “reflected/scattered” in par. 0104 indicate specular and non-specular scenes, respectively, due to the known grammar use of the forward slash to indicate things that have a close relationship or are in opposition to each other. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would most reasonably understand the terms to indicate both a close relationship (general reflection of light from a scene) and/or opposition, using “reflected” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include specular reflection and the term “scattered” to indicate, suggest, or otherwise include non-specular reflection. With either interpretation, the disclosure of the prior art encompasses related general forms of reflection from a scene (which indicate specular and non-specular reflection) and more particularly, that those terms indicate the difference in the type of reflection (regular reflection as “reflected” and diffuse reflection as “scattered”) since there is no suggestion in the disclosure of Fried to indicate an advantage or desire to exclude the type of scene illuminated (such as specular or non-specular). Further, throughout the disclosure, Fried commonly uses the phrase “reflected or scattered” when referring to light returning from the scene, further indicating that different types of reflection (specular and non-specular) are intended to be included.
22: Fried teaches the light source comprises one of a laser [laser source 110] and a solar illuminator.
23, 26, 35 mutatis mutandis: Fried teaches the ratio of first intensity to second intensity from the known formula: R=S1/S2, where R is the ratio, S1 is intensity from sensor 1 and S2 is intensity from sensor 2. Further, since intensity is further known to be inversely proportional to the square of distance from the source, the equation above would reasonably become: S2/S1=(d1/d2)^2, wherein d1 is a first distance to target and d2 is a second distance to target. In this case, since the same distance to target is required by the claimed formula, this would be simplified to S2/S1=d^2 or S1/S2=1/d^2 which corresponds to the claimed formula without consideration of sensor displacement from one another. Now to consider that sensor displacement, since the distance between sensor 1 and the target and the distance between sensor 2 and the target are known (the same value), a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious employing triangulation to find the displacement between sensors.
24, 27, 36, 40 mutatis mutandis: Fried teaches the first reflected/scattered signal and the second reflected/scattered signal are characterized by a change rate [0028, 0069 teach signal repetition rate which corresponds to received signal rate based on distance to target].
28, 37 mutatis mutandis: Fried additionally teaches consideration of atmospheric absorption. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the claimed formula is a from of the Beer-Lambert law which determined intensity ratio with consideration of atmospheric absorption.
29, 30: Fried teaches consideration of employing wavelengths with high and low atmospheric absorption depending on what scene is being measured.
31-33, 38-39: Fried teaches that light source 110 includes lasers operating at various wavelengths and modes and with short pulse durations (e.g. 0.1 ns to 10 ns) at 0056-57. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the difference in wavelengths being less than 0.015 micrometers is supported by the disclosure of Fried having lasers operating at various wavelengths and modes, such that it may be desirable or necessary to emit slightly different wavelengths for the purpose of correcting or accommodating for a change in scene or atmospheric transmission needs as the lidar system moves through an environment, for example. Thus, it would be further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the claimed wavelength difference, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights