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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 lns. 4-5: “directing light based its wavelength” appears instead of “directing light based on its wavelength”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites “The method of claim, including…” but does not recite which claim upon which it depends. Therefore, Claim 11, and claims 12-13 by dependency on claim 11, are rejected. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 11 as dependent on claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uehara US 20190391270 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Uehara teaches a method for use in a spatial profiling system for detecting targets in an environment (Fig. 5, [0048-63]), the method including:
by optical and electrical components (Figs. 1-3, 5) of a spatial profiling system:
sending first outgoing light into the environment, the first outgoing light including a signal with first characteristics for detection of diffuse targets in the environment (510 in Fig. 5, [0049-50]);
sending second outgoing light into the environment, the second outgoing light including a signal with second characteristics different to the first characteristics and an intensity or spectral power density less than the first outgoing light (lowers intensity and can adjust frequency and/or other attributes in 560 in Fig. 5, [0057-60]);
detecting incoming light including first incoming light and second incoming light, wherein the first incoming light is a portion of the first outgoing light reflected by a target in the environment and the second incoming light is a portion of the second outgoing light reflected by a target in the environment (520 and 570 in Fig. 5, [0051-52, 61]);
generating, by the spatial profiling system, data including information identifying detection of the first incoming light and information identifying detection of the second incoming light (520 and 570 in Fig. 5, [0051-52, 61]); and
causing an action by the spatial profiling system based on the information identifying detection of the second incoming light (580 in Fig. 5, [0062-63]).
Regarding claim 2, Uehara teaches method the of claim 1, further including determining, by the spatial profiling system based on the detected first incoming light and second incoming light, presence of both a diffuse target and a retroreflector target in the environment ([0005-6, 24-26, 36, 46, 51, 58]).
Regarding claim 3, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 2, further including determining, by the spatial profiling system based on the detected first incoming light and second incoming light, presence and location of a diffuse target and presence of a retroreflector target in the environment ([0005-6, 24-26, 36, 46, 51, 58]).
Regarding claim 4, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 2, further including determining, by the spatial profiling system based on the detected first incoming light and second incoming light, presence and location of a diffuse target and presence and location of a retroreflector target in the environment ([0005-6, 24-26, 36, 46, 51, 58]).
Regarding claim 19, Uehara teaches method a method for use in a spatial profiling system for detecting targets in an environment (Fig. 5, [0048-63]), the method including:
by a light receiver (detector 310 in Fig. 3) of a spatial profiling system:
detecting first incoming light from an environment, the first incoming light including reflected laser light from the spatial profiling system (520 in Fig. 5, [0051-52]);
detecting second incoming light from the environment, the second incoming light including reflected noise light from the spatial profiling system while the laser light is not transmitted (570 in Fig. 5, [0061]; examiner notes that this is different laser light being emitted for this detection);
by a processing system (processor 110 and scanning module 220, Fig. 3) of the spatial profiling system:
modifying data for a spatial profile estimation based on the detected first incoming light, wherein the modifying is based on the detected second incoming light (580 in Fig. 5, [0062-63]).
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara US 20190391270 A1 in view of Droz US 20200141716 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 1,
Uehara does not explicitly teach wherein the first outgoing light includes signal and noise (the lidar system inherently includes noise) and the second outgoing light includes noise and no or substantially no signal.
Droz teaches a secondary signal with intensity 1000 times less than the primary signal ([0127-131]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that 1000 times less is substantially no signal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara such the first outgoing light includes signal and noise (the lidar system inherently includes noise) and the second outgoing light includes noise and no or substantially no signal similar to Droz with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping identify retroreflectors (Droz: [0129]).
Regarding claim 6, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 5, including sending the first outgoing light in a first period of time and sending the second outgoing light in a second period of time, different to the first period of time (510 and 570 in Fig. 5, [0049-50, 57-60]).
Regarding claim 7, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 6, further including:
Uehara does not explicitly teach determining that there is a match between: a time separation between a detected return signal in the detected first incoming light and a detected return signal in the detected second incoming light; and a time separation between the first period of time and the second period of time; wherein the causing of the action by the spatial profiling system is responsive to the determination of a match.
Droz teaches timings of pulse emissions and matching receiving pulse timings to identify reflected signals ([0210-219]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara such determining that there is a match between: a time separation between a detected return signal in the detected first incoming light and a detected return signal in the detected second incoming light; and a time separation between the first period of time and the second period of time; wherein the causing of the action by the spatial profiling system is responsive to the determination of a match similar to Droz with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping identify retroreflectors (Droz: [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Uehara teaches method the method of claim 6, wherein the signal includes light from a laser light source with wavelengths within a wavelength range and the noise includes light outside of the wavelength range (noise in a laser inherently includes some light outside the wavelength range of the laser).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara US 20190391270 A1 in view of Hillard US 11467288 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Uehara teaches the method the method of claim 1,
Uehara does not explicitly teach wherein the first outgoing light has a first modulation and the method further includes: determining a match between a modulation in the detected second incoming light and a second modulation, different to the first modulation, of the second outgoing light; wherein the causing of the action by the spatial profiling system is responsive to the determination of a match.
Hillard teaches modulating each signal with different codes and filtering based on the code sequences to determine time and locations (claim 13, Col. 2 lns. 36-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara such that the first outgoing light has a first modulation and the method further includes: determining a match between a modulation in the detected second incoming light and a second modulation, different to the first modulation, of the second outgoing light; wherein the causing of the action by the spatial profiling system is responsive to the determination of a match similar to Hillard with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping minimize interference from other sources (Hillard: Col. 12: lns. 42-64).
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara US 20190391270 A1 in view of Li US 20220026532 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Uehara teaches the method of claim 19, further including:
Uehara does not explicitly teach determining that a time separation between a first detected return signal in the first detected incoming light and a second detected return signal in the second detected incoming light is within a threshold range; wherein the modification of the data for the spatial profile estimation is responsive to the determination.
Li teaches combining signals when time difference is less than a threshold ([0042]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that larger time separations would result in combining data from likely interfering sources)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara to include determining that a time separation between a first detected return signal in the first detected incoming light and a second detected return signal in the second detected incoming light is within a threshold range; wherein the modification of the data for the spatial profile estimation is responsive to the determination similar to Li with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of guiding the light controllably towards a target location.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara US 20190391270 A1 in view of Swanson US 20170299697 A1.
Regarding claim 23, Uehara teaches a spatial profiling system including optical components for directing outgoing light into an environment and receiving light from the environment including outgoing light reflected by the environment, the outgoing light including laser light for spatial profiling (Figs. 1-5, [0048-63]);
one or more noise generating components that operate to add noise to the directed outgoing light (lasers and other optical components inherently generate noise);
a light receiver and processing unit configured generate data for a spatial estimation of the environment based on the light received from the environment (processor 110 and scanning module 220, Fig. 3);
wherein the light receiver and processing unit is configured to:
detect first incoming light from an environment, the first incoming light including reflected laser light from the spatial profiling system (520 in Fig. 5, [0051-52]);
detect second incoming light from the environment, the second incoming light including reflected noise light from the spatial profiling system while the laser light is not transmitted (570 in Fig. 5, [0061]; examiner notes that this is different laser light being emitted for this detection);
modify data for a spatial profile estimation of the environment based on the detected first incoming light, wherein the modifying is based on the detected second incoming light (580 in Fig. 5, [0062-63]).
Uehara does not explicitly teach the optical components directing light based its wavelength.
Swanson teaches steering the output light based on wavelength ([0201]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara such that the optical components directing light based its wavelength similar to Swanson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of guiding the light controllably towards a target location.
Regarding claim 24, Uehara as modified above teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 23,
Uehara does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more noise generating components includes an amplifier.
Swanson teaches an amplifier that generates noise ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara such that the one or more noise generating components includes an amplifier similar to Swanson with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the strength of light passing through the amplifier.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara US 20190391270 A1 in view of Swanson US 20170299697 A1 and further in view of Hillard US 11467288 B2.
Regarding claim 27, Uehara as modified above teaches the spatial profiling system of claim 23
Uehara does not explicitly teach including a modulator configured to modulate the outgoing light and the noise, wherein the light receiver and processing unit is configured to detect the reflected laser light and reflected noise light based on the modulation imparted to the outgoing light by the modulator.
Hillard teaches modulating each signal with different codes using modulators and filtering based on the code sequences to determine time and locations (claim 13, Col. 2 lns. 36-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Uehara to include a modulator configured to modulate the outgoing light and the noise, wherein the light receiver and processing unit is configured to detect the reflected laser light and reflected noise light based on the modulation imparted to the outgoing light by the modulator similar to Hillard with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping minimize interference from other sources (Hillard: Col. 12: lns. 42-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The method of claim 9, specifically including: controlling the laser light source so that the second outgoing light includes no signal.
The method of claim 14, specifically including: configuring, by the one or more processing units, the laser light source and the amplifier into a second configuration in which the laser light source ceases generating signal and the amplifier remains in the same operating state as the first configuration
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Imaki US 20190018144 A1 teaches measuring amplified spontaneous emission noise generated in the optical amplifier to correct received spectrum, but does not teach emitting the noise without a signal ([0067, 77, 81]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights