DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “signal processor connected to the first and second light detectors” limitation from claims 6 and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There appears to be partial support for this claim limitation in paragraph [0035] of the specification. No new matter should be entered. It appears that FIG. 3 could be updated to incorporate the undepicted claimed features.
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 it contains multiple embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Hyperlinks were noted in paragraphs [0008] and [0023].
Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for containing an obvious grammatical error. It is suggested that Applicant amend claim 7 to remove the repeated use of the word “the” in the phrase “wherein the the array”.
Method claims 9 – 14 are objected to for depending from dependent system claim 6. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will assume claims 9 – 14 depend instead from independent method claim 8 for purposes of examination.
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.
Claims 3, 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that claim 1 recites demodulation circuitry coupled to each of the light detectors. Claim 3 then recites that the system is not structured to transport a message from the light emitter to the array of light detectors. Paragraph [0036] of the instant specification explains that a reference oscillator produces a signal which can have a fixed continuous frequency or otherwise a constant tone. Paragraph [0036] goes on to give a pseudo definition for message as follows “a broad term that can mean voice, music, text, characters, codes such as morse code, or the like), but it need not be fixed or constant - although it should be predictable”.
The specification does not appear to explain further what particular structure IS associated with a system that is not structured to transport a message from the light emitter to the array of light detectors., given that transmitters and receivers of this kind routinely modulate and demodulate messages of various kinds. The specification appear to be silent regarding how an emitter / transmitter pair can be structured to be incapable of incorporating a signal modulation that constitutes the extremely broad scope given in paragraph [0036] for “message”.
Furthermore, given that the instant specification describes the incorporation of a constant tone into the carrier wave and a tone is generally a type of music it appears that the invention as described does in fact transport a “message” from the light transmitter to the receiver.
In summary, even after reviewing the entirety of the specification and drawings it is not clear what structure the “not structured” limitation is intending to recite.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the limitation “such as” renders the claim ambiguous as to whether the scope of the claim is limited to a lens or can include any optical system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-5, 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over US PG Pub US20230071722 (hereinafter Klemme).
Regarding Claim 1, Klemme teaches a LIDAR system (lidar system 100) comprising:
a signal reference (pseudorandom bit sequence (PRBS), see [0036] generated by encoder block 212),
a light emitter (emitter 106, see FIG. 1) that emits light,
an array of light detectors that receives emitted light reflected from an object(s) (Front End 404, see FIG. 4 and [0041] describing 404 as receiving light and including detector grids), and
filter and demodulation circuitry (analog processing circuit 700, [0050] describes 700 as including “a filter to clean up the signal and reduce non-desired frequency components” ) coupled to each of the light detectors (FIG. 4 shows front end 404 coupled to analog processing circuit 406 & 700 is a more detailed description of 406) , the filter and demodulation circuitry structured to demodulate the received emitted light (analog processing circuit 700 includes demodulation channels 704, see FIG. 7 and [0054] which describes the use of clock 710, timing circuit 712 and multiplier block 714 to extract / demodulate doppler information from the reflected pulse) for comparison to the signal reference to derive phase differences related to distance of the object(s) ([0055] describes how analog correlator block 716 correlates the received output sequence from multiplier block 714 to the input sequency from encoder 212) .
Regarding Claim 2, Klemme teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1 wherein the light emitter and array of light detectors are co-located (FIG. 1 shows energy source emitter 106 and detector 108 co-located within LIDAR system 100).
Regarding Claim 3, Klemme teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1 wherein the system is not structured to transport a message from the light emitter to the array of light detectors (Klemme does not describes the transportation of a message from its light emitter and Klemme’s incorporation of a pseudo-random bit sequence, as can be best be interpreted by the Examiner in light of the inconsistencies regarding the meaning of message as described in the 112 rejection above, does not appear to rise to the level of a message as described by the instant specification in paragraph [0036] as “a broad term that can mean voice, music, text, characters, codes such as morse code, or the like, but it need not be fixed or constant - although it should be predictable”).
Regarding Claim 4, Klemme teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1 further including range determining circuitry that determines ranges from the phase differences to provide a 3D point cloud (ADC 408 and Digital Processing Circuit 410 convert and output range information in a digital form, see block 912 from FIG. 9, that would result in a 3D point cloud).
Regarding Claim 5, Klemme teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1 wherein the filter and demodulation circuitry filters out phase effects due to ambient light ([0049] describes analog filter operator block 702 receiving quadrature inputs to clean up the signal and reduce non-desired frequency components. Applicant’s specification at [0021] clarifies the meaning of this claim limitation stating that their invention uses “quadrature sampling methods to produce a sensor that is better at rejecting environmental noise such as ambient light”)
Regarding Claim 7, Klemme teaches, the LIDAR system of claim 1 wherein the the array of light detectors is located on the same focal plane of an optical system such as a lens ([0041] describes how front end 404 includes both optics and detector grids).
Claims 8-12 and 14 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-5 and 7. Consequently, Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-5 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemme as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PCT publication WO2021168866.
Regarding Claim 6, Klemme teaches the LIDAR system of claim 1 wherein the array comprises first and second light detectors each of which receive reflected emitted light (Front End 404, see FIG. 4 and [0041] describing 404 as receiving light and including detector grids, Examiner notes that a detector grid would include at least first and second detectors).
Klemme does not specifically teach where the system further includes a signal processor connected to the first and second light detectors that derives phase differences between signals received by the first light detector and signals received by the second light detector.
However, WO2021168866 at page 19 and lines 33 - 35 of the English translation provided herewith, does describe a TOF image sensor array where each pixel in the TOF image sensor array independently receives and demodulates phase differences of corresponding points on the surface of an object.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Klemme described above with those of WO2021168866 to modify operation of the detector grids taught by Klemme to derive phase difference between signals received by a first light detector of the detector grids and signals received by a second light detector of the detector girds since the person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply this known technique described in WO2021168866 to improve the detector grids described by Klemme. The application of this technique improves the system by allowing for comparison of ranging information received for corresponding points to identify substantial ranging information discrepancies for improved data reliability.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 6. It is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuchida (US 20230052690) teaches a LIDAR system incorporating a frequency modulated subcarrier(s) on a fixed frequency carrier wave (see FIG. 2) where the carrier and modulated subcarrier waves are used to output a multi-frequency laser (see FIGS. 3A and 3B and paragraphs [0064] - [0065]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am to 6:00pm.
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 5712703603. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645