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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
This acknowledges that as of the date of this office action, no Information Disclosure Statement has been submitted by the applicant.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 were canceled and claims 21-30 were introduced by applicant’s amendments received 01 June 2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in excess of 150 words in length, even after exclusion of reference numbers to parts which are included in the abstract from the count. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “of” is missing between ‘plurality’ and ‘detector’ in the limitation “…of the plurality detector pixels…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 16, 21, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nauen anticipates a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0001]) comprising:
a light source including a plurality of sub-light sources arranged in a first direction, wherein the plurality of sub-light sources is configured to emit light towards a field of view (FOV) with a first spatial resolution ([0025], [0033]; Fig. 1 emitter (22) may be a one or two- dimensional emitter matrix with separate emitters (24));
a detector including a plurality of detector pixels arranged in a second direction, wherein the plurality of detector pixels is configured to detect light reflected from objects in the FOV with a second spatial resolution ([0016], [0035]; Fig. 1 detector (18) may be a one or two- dimensional detector matrix with pixels (20));
a coarse angle control element configured to deflect the emitted light from the light source towards the FOV and to deflect the light reflected from the objects in the FOV to the detector ([0020], [0025]; Figs. 3, 5, where both the transmitting unit and the detection unit include secondary optics (28, 32), which may represent a lens or optical system consisting of several elements, and which defines the overall FOV of the system by mapping an emitter to a portion of the FOV, and a portion of the FOV to a detector pixel),
and a controller configured to control the plurality of sub-light sources to emit light towards the FOV ([0036]; Fig. 1 control unit (16) is intended to control both transmission and reception),
wherein the first direction and the second direction form an angle with respect to each other, and the angle is not 0° or 180° such that the light source and the detector form a crossed arrangement to provide the first spatial resolution in the first direction and the second spatial resolution in the second direction (Fig. 1, where emitter array (22) is arranged perpendicular to detector array (18)).
Regarding claim 12, Nauen anticipates the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, wherein
the angle is 90° and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 1, where emitter array (22) is arranged perpendicular to detector array (18)).
Regarding claim 13, Nauen anticipates the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, wherein
the controller configured to control the plurality of sub-light sources to emit light towards the FOV comprises the controller configured to sequentially activate the plurality of sub-light sources to emit respective light signals in respective emission time periods ([0026], emitter units can be controlled individually which optionally by means of suitable optics, illuminate a certain solid angle range sequentially in a first dimension or direction.).
Regarding claim 16, Nauen anticipates the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, the system further comprises
an optical array transmitter arranged between the light source and the coarse angle control element ([0033], [0047]; Fig. 6 where emitter optics (34) sit between emitter (22) and secondary optics (32)).
Regarding claim 21, Nauen anticipates the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11, the system further comprising
an optical array receiver arranged between the detector and the coarse angle control element to focus the light reflected from the objects in the FOV onto the detector ([0033], [0043]; Fig. 4 where detector optics (30) sit between detector (18) and secondary optics (28)).
Regarding claim 29, Nauen anticipates the LIDAR system as defined in claim 22, wherein
a cardinality of the plurality detector pixels determines the second spatial resolution in the second direction ([0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where the detector pixels (20) each have a corresponding solid angle range (Ω) which provides a total angular span in the same direction the detector array aligns and therefore determines spatial resolution).
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) 14-15, 17-20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Ma (US 20230035528 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 13.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of a firing scheme of two sub-light sources with a waiting time between.
Ma teaches the controller is configured to further control two of said plurality of sub-light sources to be activated in an interval of a waiting time ([0162] - [0166]; where a first light emission unit and a second light emission unit may be sequentially be controlled to emit).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to emit light from different sub-light sources at differing times separated by a waiting time with a reasonable expectation of success. Nauen notes that in raster LIDAR emission can be temporally sequential in nature ([0003]) and implementing the wait time of Ma would have a predictable result of creating an emission scheme with time between emission of two different sources within the system of Nauen.
Regarding claim 15, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 14.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the waiting time between.
Ma teaches the waiting time is greater than or substantially equal to a maximum transit time when light emitted by one of the two of said plurality of sub-light sources is detected by one of the plurality of detector pixels before the other one of the two of said plurality of sub-light sources is activated to emit light ([0164]; where a first light emission unit and a second light emission unit may be sequentially be controlled to emit, and the second light emission unit is turned on after an echo signal is detected).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to emit light from different sub-light sources at differing times separated by a waiting time which is specific to the time-of-flight of the first signal with a reasonable expectation of success. Nauen notes that in raster LIDAR emission can be temporally sequential in nature ([0003]) and implementing the wait time of Ma would have a predictable result of creating an emission scheme within the system of Nauen where echo signals do not overlap with the emission of subsequent signals.
Regarding claim 17, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a slow-axis collimator lens configured to collimate the light emitted by the light source in a direction of a slow axis of the light source ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a slow-axis-collimator lens).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as a slow-axis collimator lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Collimation optics are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems, and incorporation of the collimator lens of Ma into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of collimating beams emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a slow-axis collimator lens configured to collimate the light emitted by the light source in a direction of a fast axis of the light source ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a fast-axis-collimator lens).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as a fast-axis collimator lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Collimation optics are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems, and incorporation of the collimator lens of Ma into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of collimating beams emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 19, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 16.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the optical array transmitter comprises a multi-lens array configured to separate the light emitted by the plurality of sub- light sources ([0195] - [0196]; Fig. 20a, where second optical shaping module (242) may include a microlens array).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as multi-lens array, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a multi-lens array, such as the microlens array of Ma, into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of shaping the individual beams emitted from a source array as they are emitted into the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 19.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the transmitter.
Ma teaches the multi-lens array includes a zone structure along the first direction ([0162], [0172] - [0175]; Fig. 7, where each emitter may be fitted with its own lens (212a), which demonstrates how a microlens array would situate with each lens positioned to transmit a specific emitter's light) .
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as multi-lens array where each emitter is fitted with its own lens, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a multi-lens array, where each emitter is associated with a different lens, into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of shaping the individual beams emitted from a source array as they are emitted into the environment without interference between beams.
Regarding claim 30, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 21.
Nauen is silent on the specifics of the optics associated with the receiver.
Ma teaches the optical array receiver further comprises a lens that has an equal focal length in the first direction and second direction ([0156]; Fig. 2, receiving optical module (222) can be a spherical lens, a spherical lens group, a cylindrical lens group, or the like, where a spherical lens will have equal focal length in both a horizontal and vertical direction.).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Ma to utilize a specific optical component, such as lenses which are uniform in two directions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Optics such as lenses are well known in the art of LIDAR and ranging systems and incorporation of a spherical lens which does not have differing focal lengths in two perpendicular directions would have a predictable result of shaping the individual echo signals identically in multiple directions before they are incident upon a detector.
Claim(s) 22-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Eichenholtz et al. (hereinafter Eichenholtz, US 20180284280 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11.
Nauen does not explicitly discuss how the emitter orientation cardinality determines a spatial resolution.
Eichenholtz teaches a system where the FOV is defined by a plurality of first tiles, and a cardinality of the plurality of first tiles corresponds to a cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources, the first spatial resolution being defined by dividing an angular extension of one of the plurality of first tiles along the first direction by the cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources ([0107] - [0109]; Fig. 6, where the field of regard (FOR) is broken into scan lines, where each scan line is linked to an emitter, the FOR is scanned opposite to the direction of emitter distribution, and the resolution/pixels making up the FOR are determined by the number of emitters/scan lines along the emitter distribution).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to note that the emitter orientation/cardinality will affect the resolution in the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success. LIDAR systems which utilize multiple emitters directed to slightly different sections of a FOV and scanned as described by Eichenholtz would be integrated into the system of Nauen with predictable results, as Nauen already teaches a system with a 1-D array of emitters where FOVs can be scanned to new locations (as seen in Fig. 2), and the number of emitters being scanned would affect the spatial resolution in that direction. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the resolution of the FOR would be dependent on the sizes of the independent FOVs, the number of simultaneous FOVs existing in a given direction, and the amount of overlap between scans at subsequent time points.
Regarding claim 23, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 22, wherein
the FOV is further defined by a plurality of second tiles, and a cardinality of the plurality of second tiles corresponds to a cardinality of the plurality of detector pixels ([0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where a solid angle range (Ω) for each detector pixel splits the entire FOV in a direction associated with the detector), the second spatial resolution being defined by dividing an angular extension of one of the plurality of second tiles along the second direction by a cardinality of the plurality of detector pixels ([0026], [0038]; Fig 2, where the detector pixels (20) each have a corresponding solid angle range (Ω) which provides a total angular span in the same direction the detector array aligns and therefore determines spatial resolution).
Regarding claim 24, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 22.
Nauen is silent on the sizes of the FOV segments.
Eichenholtz teaches one of the plurality of first tiles at an edge of the FOV has a larger size than that in a center of the FOV ([0181], Figs. 23, 24 where edge FOVs may be larger than central FOVs due to scan pattern).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to have FOV pixels/segments which are larger near the periphery of the FOR than those in the center with a reasonable expectation of success. As Eichenholtz notes, non-uniform scan line separation and non-uniform mapping of pixels toe detector sites in the arrays allow the system to increase the field of regard, or use less detectors, by varying the information density ([0179] – [0180]).
Regarding claim 25, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 23.
Nauen is silent on the sizes of the FOV segments.
Eichenholtz teaches a size of each of the plurality of first tiles is identical to a size of each of the plurality of second tiles ([0076], [0107], [0116], Fig. 7 where the FOV of the receiver may be the same size as the FOV of the emitter and pixels evenly distributed within the FOR, and therefore the horizontal and vertical sizes of IFOVs/segments will be identical).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to have uniformly sized FOV segments in two dimensions with a reasonable expectation of success. When receiver and emitter FOVs are variable, as in the system of Eichenholtz, it allows for a system to compensate for differing beam divergence at different object distances (Eichenholtz, [0117] – [0118]), as well as modify scan patterns based on intended object detection.
Regarding claim 27, Nauen as modified above teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 23, wherein
a dimension of the detector corresponds to a size of each of the plurality of second tiles of the FOV ([0026], [0037]; Fig 2, where a solid angle range (Ω) is associated with the detector pixels and pixel width (B) affects the solid angles and resolution).
Regarding claim 28, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11.
Nauen does not explicitly discuss how the emitter orientation cardinality determines a spatial resolution.
Eichenholtz teaches a cardinality of the plurality of sub-light sources determines the first spatial resolution in the first direction ([0107] - [0109]; Fig. 6, where the field of regard (FOR) is broken into scan lines, where each scan line is linked to an emitter, the FOR is scanned opposite to the direction of emitter distribution, and the resolution/pixels making up the FOR are determined by the number of emitters/scan lines along the emitter distribution).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Eichenholtz to note that the emitter orientation/cardinality will affect the resolution in the first direction with a reasonable expectation of success. LIDAR systems which utilize multiple emitters directed to slightly different sections of a FOV and scanned as described by Eichenholtz would be integrated into the system of Nauen with predictable results, as Nauen already teaches a system with a 1-D array of emitters where FOVs can be scanned to new locations (as seen in Fig. 2), and the number of emitters being scanned would affect the spatial resolution in that direction.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauen (DE 102017221797 A1) in view of Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin, US 20190235057 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nauen teaches the LIDAR system as defined in claim 11.
Nauen is silent on the format of the coarse angle control element.
Lin teaches a coarse angle control element includes a liquid crystal layer and a polarization grating ([0006], where it is known to combine a compact liquid crystal waveguide and a polarization grating to direct a beam in a ToF system).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Nauen to incorporate the teachings of Lin to utilize a coarse angle control element which includes both a liquid crystal layer and a polarization grating with a reasonable expectation of success. As noted by Lin, both liquid crystal layers and polarization gratings can be combined into a compact electrooptical beam director, and beam direction adjustments allow for increased scan angular ranges to increase field of views of laser scanners ([0042]). Therefore, integration of a beam director as taught by Lin into the system of Nauen would have a predictable result of controlling and increasing a scan range of a laser scanner’s FOV.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mimeault (US 20120287417 A1) teaches a system which is a multiple-field-of-view rangefinder which is scannerless, and discusses how detector dimensionality and optics affects angular resolution.
Bills et al. (US 20180062345A1) teaches an optical apparatus with an array of lasers, where spatial pitch and beam spread affect the angular resolution of the system.
Steinberg et al. (US 20180113200 A1) teaches a LIDAR system which scans over a field of view, and identifies at least one region of interest where light allocation or other factors are modified for subsequent scans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645