DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 57-82 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 6/12/2023, 1/14/2024, 4/30/2024, and 9/9/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/23/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not 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 81-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laflaquière et al., US 20200309955 A1 (“Laflaquière”) .
Regarding claim 81, Laflaquière discloses a solid-state Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a) a plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of lasers generating an optical beam having a Field of View (FOV) when energized (Fig. 1, emitter array 28, Paragraph [0024]; Fig. 2, VCSELs 50 in array 28, Paragraph [0033]);
b) a plurality of detectors positioned in an optical path of the optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0027]-[0028]), each of the plurality of detectors having a detector signal output (Fig. 1, Processing chip 38, array of processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0028],[0030]), wherein a FOV of at least one of the plurality of optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers overlaps a FOV of at least two of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]); and
c) a controller having a plurality of laser control outputs and a plurality of detector inputs (Fig. 1, controller 44, Paragraph [0031], [0033]), each of the plurality of laser control outputs being electrically connected to a bias input of one of the plurality of lasers (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) and each of the plurality of detector inputs being electrically connected to the detector signal output of one of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, Controller 44, processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0030]-[0031]), the controller being configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers in a sequence such that a measurement rate of the LIDAR system is less than a firing rate constraint of at least one laser of the selected group of the plurality of lasers (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033], Fig. 4, train 62 of optical pulses 60a, 60b and 60c, Paragraph [0037]: period between pulse trains greater than expected time of flight).
Regarding claim 82, Laflaquière discloses a solid-state Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a) a plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of lasers generating an optical beam having a Field of View (FOV) when energized (Fig. 1, emitter array 28, Paragraph [0024]; Fig. 2, VCSELs 50 in array 28, Paragraph [0033]);
b) a plurality of detectors positioned in an optical path of the optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0027]-[0028]), each of the plurality of detectors having a detector signal output (Fig. 1, Processing chip 38, array of processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0028],[0030]), wherein a FOV of at least one of the plurality of optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers overlaps a FOV of at least two of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]); and
c) a controller having a plurality of laser control outputs and a plurality of detector inputs (Fig. 1, controller 44, Paragraph [0031], [0033]), each of the plurality of laser control outputs being electrically connected to a bias input of one of the plurality of lasers (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) and each of the plurality of detector inputs being electrically connected to the detector signal output of one of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, Controller 44, processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0030]-[0031]), the controller being configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers in a sequence(Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) such that a detector having a FOV that overlaps a FOV of an optical beam generated at a first point in the sequence is not immediately adjacent to a detector having a FOV that overlaps a FOV of an optical beam generated at a second point in the sequence that immediately follows the first point in the sequence (Fig. 3A, detectors that detect beams from emitter groups 50A and 50B, Paragraph [0035], [0040]-[0041]).
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 57-61, 63, 67, 70-71, and 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquière et al., US 20200309955 A1 (“Laflaquière”) in view of Dumais et al., US 20190369254 A1 (“Dumais”).
Regarding claim 57, Laflaquière discloses a solid-state Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a) a plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of lasers generating an optical beam having a Field of View (FOV) when energized (Fig. 1, emitter array 28, Paragraph [0024]; Fig. 2, VCSELs 50 in array 28, Paragraph [0033]);
b) a plurality of detectors positioned in an optical path of the optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0027]-[0028]), each of the plurality of detectors having a detector signal output (Fig. 1, Processing chip 38, array of processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0028],[0030]), wherein a FOV of at least one of the plurality of optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers overlaps a FOV of at least two of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]); and
c) a controller having a plurality of laser control outputs and a plurality of detector inputs (Fig. 1, controller 44, Paragraph [0031], [0033]), each of the plurality of laser control outputs being electrically connected to a bias input of one of the plurality of lasers (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) and each of the plurality of detector inputs being electrically connected to the detector signal output of one of the plurality of detectors (Fig. 1, Controller 44, processing circuits 42, Paragraph [0030]-[0031]), the controller being configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers in a sequence (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) (Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]).
Laflaquière does not teach: selecting groups of the plurality of lasers in order to maintain eye safe conditions.
However, Dumais teaches a controller that activates individual light sources in a sequence that limits light emission levels in accordance with eye safety requirements (Fig. 5A-5C, controller 240, two light sources 210a, 210b of the array 210, Paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
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 Laflaquière’s spatio-temporal emission sequence by emitting the light sources in a sequence that limits light emission levels in accordance with eye safety requirements, which is disclosed by Dumais. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain emission levels below prescribed eye safety limits, as suggested by Dumais (Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 58, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the detection event sequence is further based on a detection duration (Laflaquière , Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]: SPAD actuated only when corresponding emitter is operative).
Regarding claim 59, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the detection event sequence is further based on a duty cycle of the sequence (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0041]: SPAD actuated only when corresponding emitter is operative).
Regarding claim 60, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the detection event sequence is further based on a measurement method of the detection (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 61, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein at least some of the plurality of lasers comprise vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, emitter array 28, Paragraph [0024]; Fig. 2, VCSELs 50 in array 28, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 63, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the plurality of lasers comprises a two- dimensional array of lasers (Laflaquière, Fig. 3A, emitter array 28, emitters 50, Paragraph [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 67, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the plurality of detectors comprises a two- dimensional array of detectors (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 70, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the controller is further configured to repeat the generation of the bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize the selected group of the plurality of lasers (Laflaquière, Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) in the predetermined time sequence a plurality of times (Laflaquière, Fig. 3A, emitters 50, emitters 50a, emitters 50b and emitters 50c, Paragraph [0034]; Fig. 4, Paragraph [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 71, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the controller is configured to detect a predetermined sequence of detector signals generated by the plurality of detectors in a sequence that is repeated a plurality of times (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0038], [0041]).
Regarding claim 73, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the controller is configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers to emit light in a predetermined pattern (Laflaquière, Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]; Fig. 3A, emitters 50, emitters 50a, emitters 50b and emitters 50c, Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 74, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 73 wherein the controller is configured to detect a predetermined sequence of detector signals generated by the plurality of detectors corresponding to the predetermined pattern of light emitted from the plurality of lasers (Laflaquière, Fig. 1, controller 44, sensing array 34, array of SPADs 40, Paragraph [0031],[0041]).
Claims 62, 64-66, 72, and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, in further view of Donovan, US 20170307736 A1 (“Donovan”).
Regarding claim 62, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein at least some of the plurality of lasers emit laser light at different wavelengths.
However, Donovan teaches a laser source with two different wavelengths interleaved in the vertical direction (Fig. 13, laser source 1300, VCSEL bars 1306, 1308, Paragraph [0111]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by interleaving VCSELs of two different wavelengths on a substrate, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “[double] the angular resolution in a preferred direction”, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 64, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 63.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein one row of the two-dimensional array of lasers emits laser light at one wavelength when energized by the controller and another row of the two- dimensional array of lasers emits laser light at a second wavelength when energized by the controller.
However, Donovan teaches a laser source with two different wavelengths interleaved in the vertical direction (Fig. 13, laser source 1300, VCSEL bars 1306, 1308, Paragraph [0111]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by interleaving VCSELs of two different wavelengths on a substrate, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “[double] the angular resolution in a preferred direction”, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 65, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 63.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the selected group of the plurality of lasers comprises a row of the two-dimensional array.
However, Donovan teaches a multiple cluster VCSEL with individual VCSEL elements connected by a single metal contact across a row, allowing the row to be biased with one bias signal (Fig. 12D, metal contact pad 1276, 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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by connecting the VCSELs in a row with a single contact, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the number of electrical connections on the VCSEL, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 66, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 63.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the selected group of the plurality of lasers comprises a column of the two-dimensional array.
However, Donovan teaches a multiple cluster VCSEL with individual VCSEL elements connected by a single metal contact across a row, allowing the row to be biased with one bias signal (Fig. 12C, metal contact pad 1270, Paragraph [0107]-[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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by connecting the VCSELs in a row with a single contact, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the number of electrical connections on the VCSEL, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 72, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers with different wavelengths in the predetermined time sequence.
However, Donovan teaches a laser source with two different wavelengths interleaved in the vertical direction (Fig. 13, laser source 1300, VCSEL bars 1306, 1308, Paragraph [0111]). Since the VCSEL bars are on the same contact pad, the controller can bias each row (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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by interleaving VCSELs of two different wavelengths on a substrate, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “[double] the angular resolution in a preferred direction”, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 76, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize the selected group of the plurality of lasers to maintain a predetermined thermal dissipation.
However, Donovan teaches a VCSEL array with a temperature monitor in order to tune laser bias and output power as a function of temperature (Fig. 25, VCSEL array 2500, temperature sensors 2502, 2504, Paragraph [0142]-[0144]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by adding a temperature monitor to the substrate, which is disclosed by Donovan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve laser lifetime reliability, as suggested by Donovan (Paragraph [0142]).
Claims 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, in further view of Pacala et al., US 20190011567 A1 (“Pacala”).
Regarding claim 68, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses The solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to sequentially sample detector signals from one row of the two-dimensional array of detectors.
However, Pacala teaches a sensor array with row selecting circuitry that selects a row of the sensor array to activate and read out in synchronization with the light emission drivers (Fig. 12, sensor array 1202, Row selecting circuitry 1204, Paragraph [0166], [0169]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s sensor array by activating the rows sequentially, which is disclosed by Pacala. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the collection of more light and improved performance, as suggested by Pacala (Paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 69, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 68.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to sequentially sample detector signals from one column of the two-dimensional array of detectors.
However, Pacala teaches a sensor array with column selecting circuitry that selects a column of the sensor array to activate and read out in synchronization with the light emission drivers (Fig. 11, sensor array 1102, Row selecting circuitry 1104, Paragraph [0166]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s sensor array by activating the rows sequentially, which is disclosed by Pacala. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the collection of more light and improved performance, as suggested by Pacala (Paragraph [0167]).
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, in further view of LaChapelle et al., US 20180284240 A1 (“LaChapelle”).
Regarding claim 75, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses The solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57 wherein the controller is configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize the selected group of the plurality of lasers to emit light in a predetermined pattern (Fig. 2, addressing circuit 56, drive circuits 58, controller 44, Paragraph [0033]) that maintains (Laflaquière, Dumais, Fig. 5A-5C, controller 240, two light sources 210a, 210b of the array 210, Paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: maintaining Class 1 eye safe optical power levels.
However, LaChapelle teaches the Lidar system being classified as a Class 1 eye safe laser product (Paragraph [0051]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL by operating the VCSEL according to Class 1 eye-safe standards, which is disclosed by LaChapelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate the LIDAR in an eye-safe manner, as suggested by LaChapelle (Paragraph [0051]).
Claims 77-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, in further view of Niclass et al., US 20170176579 A1 (“Nicalss”).
Regarding claim 77, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 57.
Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais, does not teach: wherein the controller is configured to detect a predetermined sequence of detector signals generated by detectors that are positioned in a region that is illuminated by a single laser beam FOV.
However, Niclass teaches a detector array that actuates a super pixel of four sensing elements to detect an illumination spot that is scanned across the detector (Fig. 5, scanned illumination spots 84, 86, 88, sensing elements 44, super pixels 92, 94, 96, Paragraph [0057]-[0060]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL and sensor array by activating the detectors according to a scanned illumination spot, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the signal to noise figures, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 78, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais and Niclass, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 77 wherein the detectors that are positioned in the region that is illuminated by the single laser beam FOV includes all detectors that are illuminated by the single laser beam FOV (Niclass, Fig. 5, scanned illumination spots 84, 86, 88, sensing elements 44, super pixels 92, 94, 96, Paragraph [0057]-[0060]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL and sensor array by activating the detectors according to a scanned illumination spot, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the signal to noise figures, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 79, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais and Niclass, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 77 wherein the detectors that are positioned in the region that is illuminated by the single laser beam FOV includes a subset of detectors that are illuminated by the single laser beam FOV (Niclass, Fig. 5, scanned illumination spots 84, 86, 88, sensing elements 44, super pixels 92, 94, 96, Paragraph [0057]-[0060]).
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 Laflaquière and Dumais’s VCSEL and sensor array by activating the detectors according to a scanned illumination spot, which is disclosed by Niclass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the signal to noise figures, as suggested by Niclass (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 80, Laflaquière, as modified in view of Dumais and Niclass, discloses the solid-state LIDAR system of claim 79 wherein the subset of detectors comprises detectors forming a shape that provides a desired angular resolution for a particular measurement.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 57-82 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-56 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195 in view of Laflaquière.
The instant application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195. Since the claims were not restricted away from the parent application, they are deemed to be directed to obvious variants of the inventions set forth in the parent application.
Regarding claim 57, a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195. The differences are shown in bold text.
Instant application 17/976,554
U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195
Claim 56: A solid-state Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a) a plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of lasers generating an optical beam having a Field of View (FOV) when energized;
b) a plurality of detectors positioned in an optical path of the optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of detectors having a detector signal output, wherein a FOV of at least one of the plurality of optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers overlaps a FOV of at least two of the plurality of detectors; and
c) a controller having a plurality of laser control outputs and a plurality of detector inputs, each of the plurality of laser control outputs being electrically connected to a bias input of one of the plurality of lasers and each of the plurality of detector inputs being electrically connected to the detector signal output of one of the plurality of detectors, the controller being configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers in a sequence that is selected to maintain eye safe conditions,
and being configured to generate a detection event sequence that is based on a position of at least two of the plurality of detectors.
Claim 1: A solid-state Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system comprising:
a) a plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of lasers generating an optical beam having a Field of View (FOV) when energized;
b) a plurality of detectors positioned in an optical path of the optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers, each of the plurality of detectors having a detector signal output, wherein a FOV of at least one of the plurality of optical beams generated by the plurality of lasers overlaps a FOV of at least two of the plurality of detectors; and
c) a controller having a plurality of laser control outputs and a plurality of detector inputs, each of the plurality of laser control outputs being electrically connected to a bias input of one of the plurality of lasers and each of the plurality of detector inputs being electrically connected to the detector signal output of one of the plurality of detectors, the controller being configured to generate bias signals at the plurality of laser control outputs that energize a selected group of the plurality of lasers in a predetermined time sequence that is selected to maintain eye safe conditions,
and being configured to detect a predetermined sequence of detector signals generated by the plurality of detectors that is chosen to provide a desired measurement resolution.
The difference between claim 57 of 17/976,554 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195 is that the controller generates a detection event sequence based on the positions of at least two detectors in the detector array.
U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195 teaches determining a detector event sequence based on the laser fire pattern in Figure 7 and paragraphs [0060]-[0061].
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 LIDAR system of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195 to reach the claimed invention of the instant application by determining a detector event sequence in order to improve the signal to noise ratio (U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195, Paragraph [0038])
For claims 58-82, similar analysis can be made to show the instant claims are obvious variations of claims 1-56 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,195, with cited references above. In the interest of brevity, please see rejections in the prior art section.
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