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 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 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit US 20200033474 A1 in view of Russell US 20190064331 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Petit teaches an apparatus comprising:
a laser light source configured to produce laser light pulses (111 in Figs. 1-2, [0042]);
an optical assembly, the optical assembly including beam scanning optics to scan the laser light pulses into a scan field (Deflector unit 112 in Fig. 2, [0047-54]);
a detector to detect reflections of the laser light pulses from within the scan field (113 in Fig. 2, [0058-60]); and
a light source controller coupled to the laser light source and the detector (controller 102 in Fig. 1, [0041-46]), the light source controller adapted to control the laser light source to:
emit a first emission control pulse set at a reduced first energy level (1011 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within a safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit a ranging pulse set at a higher energy level where the higher energy level is greater than the reduced first energy level (1013 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit a second emission control pulse set after a first time period following the first emission control pulse set and at a reduced second energy level (1011 repeats after 1013 in Fig. 14, [0087]); and
responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit an adjusted second emission control pulse set (1014 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]),
Petit does not explicitly teach where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 2, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light source controller is further adapted to control the laser light source to:
responsive to not detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit a third emission control pulse set, where the third emission control pulse set includes a second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a reduced third energy level (1011 repeats after 1013 in Fig. 14, [0087]; examiner notes that this process repeats); and
responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit an adjusted third emission control pulse set (1014 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]),
Petit does not explicitly teach where the adjusted third emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a further reduced third energy level relative to the reduced third energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that the adjusted third emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a further reduced third energy level relative to the reduced third energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 3, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the light source controller is further adapted to control the laser light source to: responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit a plurality of adjusted emission control pulse sets, where each of the plurality of adjusted emission control pulse sets includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that the light source controller is further adapted to control the laser light source to: responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit a plurality of adjusted emission control pulse sets, where each of the plurality of adjusted emission control pulse sets includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 4, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 3,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the further reduced second energy level relative is adjusted dynamically for each of the plurality of adjusted emission control pulse sets.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]; continually determining based on pulse sets, [0159]).
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 Petit such that the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 5, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the light source controller is further adapted to control the laser light source to: responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the ranging pulse set, emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that the light source controller is further adapted to control the laser light source to: responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the ranging pulse set, emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 6, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the light source controller is adapted to control the laser light source to emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, by being adapted to: dynamically determine the extended first time period such that the first emission control pulse set and the adjusted second emission control pulse set have a combined energy below an energy limit for pulse sets over a defined timeframe.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate can be used to adjust power, [0141, 161]; eye-safe laser system standards for average power, [0043]).
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 Petit such that the light source controller is adapted to control the laser light source to emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, by being adapted to: dynamically determine the extended first time period such that the first emission control pulse set and the adjusted second emission control pulse set have a combined energy below an energy limit for pulse sets over a defined timeframe similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 7, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 6,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the energy limit is a regulatory classification limit.
Russell teaches regulatory classification limits ([0043]).
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 Petit such that the energy limit is a regulatory classification limit similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar.
Regarding claim 8, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the light source controller is adapted to control the laser light source to emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, by being adapted to: dynamically determine the further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level such that the first emission control pulse set and the adjusted second emission control pulse set have a combined energy below an energy limit for pulse sets over a defined timeframe.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; eye-safe laser system standards for average power, [0043]).
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 Petit such that the light source controller is adapted to control the laser light source to emit the adjusted second emission control pulse set, by being adapted to: dynamically determine the further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level such that the first emission control pulse set and the adjusted second emission control pulse set have a combined energy below an energy limit for pulse sets over a defined timeframe similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 9, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises a time-of-flight (TOF) circuitry responsive to the detector to determine distances to depth measurement points in the scan field from the detected reflections (controller 102, [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Petit teaches an apparatus comprising:
a laser light source configured to produce laser light pulses (111 in Figs. 1-2, [0042]);
an optical assembly, the optical assembly including beam scanning optics to scan the laser light pulses into a scan field (Deflector unit 112 in Fig. 2, [0047-54]);
a detector to detect reflections of the laser light pulses from within the scan field (113 in Fig. 2, [0058-60]);
a time-of-flight (TOF) circuitry responsive to the detector to determine distances to depth measurement points in the scan field from the detected reflections (controller 102, [0046]);
a light source controller coupled to the laser light source and the TOF circuitry (controller 102 in Fig. 1, [0041-46]), the light source controller adapted to control the laser light source to:
emit a first emission control pulse set at a reduced first energy level (1011 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within a safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit a ranging pulse set at a higher energy level where the higher energy level is greater than the reduced first energy level (1013 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit a second emission control pulse set after a first time period following the first emission control pulse set and at a reduced second energy level (1011 repeats after 1013 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emit an adjusted second emission control pulse set (1014 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]),
responsive to not detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit a third emission control pulse set, where the third emission control pulse set includes a second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a reduced third energy level (1011 repeats after 1013 in Fig. 14, [0087]; examiner notes that this process repeats); and
responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set, emit an adjusted third emission control pulse set (1014 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]),
Petit does not explicitly teach where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level; where the adjusted third emission control pulse set includes an extended second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a further reduced third energy level relative to the reduced third energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level; where the adjusted third emission control pulse set includes an extended second time period following either the second emission control pulse set or the adjusted second emission control pulse set and a further reduced third energy level relative to the reduced third energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 12, Petit teaches an emission control method, where the method comprises:
emitting a first emission control pulse set at a reduced first energy level (1011 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within a safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emitting a ranging pulse set at a higher energy level where the higher energy level is greater than the reduced first energy level (1013 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]);
responsive to not detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emitting a second emission control pulse set after a first time period following the first emission control pulse set and at a reduced second energy level (1011 repeats after 1013 in Fig. 14, [0087]); and
responsive to detecting an object within the safety range with reflections of the first emission control pulse set, emitting an adjusted second emission control pulse set (1014 after 1012 in Fig. 14, [0087]),
Petit does not explicitly teach where the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level.
Russell teaches dynamically decreasing power when an object is within a threshold distance (814 in Fig. 14, [0136, 141, 154-155, 157, 159-161]; pulse rate, [0141, 161]).
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 Petit such that the adjusted second emission control pulse set includes at least one of an extended first time period following the first emission control pulse set and a further reduced second energy level relative to the reduced second energy level similar to Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving eye-safety of the lidar while continuing to scan.
Regarding claim 13, See rejection to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, See rejection to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, See rejection to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, See rejection to claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, See rejection to claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, See rejection to claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, See rejection to claim 8.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petit US 20200033474 A1 in view of Russell US 20190064331 A1 and further in view of Liero US 20200033446 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Petit as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Petit does not explicitly teach wherein the ranging pulse set comprises multiple pulses modulated with a signature.
Liero teaches modulating LiDAR pulses with pulse signature for clear pulse identification ([0022])
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 Petit such that the ranging pulse set comprises multiple pulses modulated with a signature similar to Liero with a reasonable expectation of success. This would improve pulse identification (Liero: [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, See rejection to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu US 20220155416 A1 teaches different emission schemes based on presence of short range object (Fig. 5)
Massoud US 20220003846 A1 teaches preamble pulses (Figs. 9-10)
Northern III US 20210270938 A1 teaches short and long range pulses (Fig. 4)
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