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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202111525765.3, filed on 12/14/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2023 an 1/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it greatly exceeds the suggested 150- word limit. 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 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, 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al. (US20200284884, “Henderson”) in view of Cox et al. (US20030011888, “Cox”), Cull et al. (US20200342623A1, “Cull”) and Samy et al.1 (“Samy”).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson teaches a Lidar apparatus, comprising: an area array light source (Henderson, Para [0044] lin. 4-9, Fig 1A, emitter array 115),
an emitting lens group (Henderson, Para [0045] lin.1-6, Fig 1A, optical elements 113),
a receiving lens group (Henderson, Para [0047] lin. 1-8, Fig 1A, receiver optics 112 (e.g., "one or more lenses to collect light over the FOV" ),
an area array detector (Henderson, Para [0044] lin. 4-9, Fig 1A, detector array 110),
and a laser beam emitted from the area array light source is transmitted, through the emitting lens group, to an object to be detected and reflected by the object to be detected, and a reflected laser beam is transmitted to the area array detector through the receiving lens group (Henderson, Para [0049] lin.1-9, Fig 1A, light emission from 115/115e reflecting off target 150 to be received through receiving optics 112 to detector array 110).
However, Henderson does not teach wherein the area array light source is located in the front focal plane of the emitting lens group, and the area array detector is located in the back focal plane of the receiving lens group;
a foveated optical system is used for each of the emitting lens group and the receiving lens group;
and the image height of the foveated optical system is directly proportional to a tangent value of a field of view.
On the other hand, Cox does teach emitters/detectors placed such that they are parallel to the focal plane (front or back) (Cox, Para [0026] lin. 5-18, Para [0031] lin. 1-4, Fig 4, by placing emitters/detectors in the same shape and position as the focal points given by the lens images are much more focused).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Lidar apparatus of Henderson, in view of Cox to apply the technique of structuring the base device's emitter/detector array parallel to the focal plane of a lens group, such that the technique would have yielded better imaging through placement at the focal points of the emitting light source. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
However, Henderson and Cox do not teach that a foveated optical system is used for each of the emitting lens group and the receiving lens group;
and the image height of the foveated optical system is directly proportional to a tangent value of a field of view.
On the other hand, Cull teaches using short effective focal length (SEFL) and long effective focal length (LEFL) lenses in an infrared foveated optical system to provide higher resolution in the center/desired region and lower resolution at the extremities/elsewhere (Para [0035] lin. 1-10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the Lidar apparatus of Henderson, in view of Cox and Cull to combine the use of a foveated optical system in both the emitting and detecting lens groups to have higher resolution in the forward-facing direction, yielding more precise imaging in a desired region. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
However, Henderson, Cox, and Cull do not teach and the image height of the foveated optical system is directly proportional to a tangent value of a field of view.
On the other hand, the image height of the foveated optical system being directly proportional to a tangent value of a field of view is taught by inherency of the properties of a foveated optical system, as the system is governed by the linear relationship between image height and the tangent of the angular field of view, the angular field of view defined by scan angle theta. See Samy section 2. See MPEP 2112.III.
Accordingly it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the LiDAR apparatus of Henderson, in view of Cox, Cull, and Samy, by using a foveated optical system with lenses parallel to the focal plane, suggesting the use of the lens and position of the emitter and detector array would allow for an apparatus with highest resolution in the forward facing direction with less resolution at the extremities of the field of view. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Regarding claim 3, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1. wherein the area array light source comprises one or more of the following laser arrays: a vertical cavity surface emitting laser array, an edge emitting laser array, a solid-state laser array, and a semiconductor laser array, (Henderson, Para [0044] lin. 15-20).
Regarding claim 9, Henderson, as modified in view of Cox, Cull, and Samy teaches a Lidar device, comprising:
the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1; and
a computing apparatus configured to calculate, based on a difference between a time at which the area array light source emits the laser beam and a time at which the area array detector receives the laser beam, a distance between the Lidar apparatus and the object to be detected (Henderson, Para. [0044] lin. 20-25, Fig 1A and 1B, the ToF device used in the control circuit).
Regarding claim 10, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull, and Samy teaches a vehicle, comprising the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1 (Henderson, Para. [0028] lin. 1-4).
Claims 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Cox, Cull, Samy, and Olivier (US20200241141A1, “Olivier”)
Regarding claim 2, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy fails to teach wherein an optical axis of the emitting lens group is parallel to an optical axis of the receiving lens group.
On the other hand, Olivier teaches the position of the emitters and detectors, both respective to their lens groups' optical axes, are parallel to the line of sight of the other instrument (Olivier, Para [0074] lin. 7-16, Fig 1, optical emitter 20 and optical receiver 40 being inclusive of collimating lenses 24 and receiving objective 44).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the LiDAR apparatus of Henderson in view of Cox, Cull, Samy, and Oliver by making the emitting and receiving optical axes parallel such that the field of view would widen, improving the imaging range of the base device. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding claim 4, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy does not teach wherein an operating waveband of the area array light source and a detection waveband of the area array detector are matched with each other.
On the other hand, Olivier does teach the allowed passage of the signal of emitted light, and the rejection of light that does not match the signal designated by the emitter (Olivier, Para [0076] lin. 1-6, Fig 1, if one were to consider using the optical 42 filter as a method of keeping the emitting and detecting wavelength the same).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the LiDAR apparatus of Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy to combining multiple optical filters to the detector pixels, such that the area array detector only matches the wavelength of the emitter. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding claim 5, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull, Samy, and Olivier teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the area array light source is an infrared light source array; and
the area array detector is an infrared detector array (Olivier, Para [0066] lin.1-10, setting the emitting array in the near-infrared spectrum suggests that with the optical filters within the detector array, both the area array light source and detector would be infrared ).
Regarding claim 6, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy does not teach wherein the area array light source and the area array detector cooperate with each other in a time interlaced lighting mode.
On the other hand, Olivier teaches the sequential emission of multiple pulses such that the detector array can receive the pulses in an interleaved sequence (Olivier, Para [0101] lin.1-10, Fig 24).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the LiDAR apparatus of Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy to motivate using multiple pulses in an emitter to cooperate with the receiving detector array. This would reduce crosstalk and allow for more efficient imaging. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Regarding claim 7, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy does not teach wherein the emitting lens group comprises a refractor, a reflector, or a combination thereof;
and/or the receiving lens group comprises a refractor, a reflector, or a combination thereof.
On the other hand, Olivier does teach the use of one or more lens elements, in combination with mirrors and/or correcting lenses/plate (Olivier, Para [0077] lin. 1-11, Fig 1, objective 44, however the same principle could be applied to an emitting lens group).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the LiDAR apparatus of Henderson in view of Cox, Cull and Samy to suggest the use of lenses, mirrors, and plates as refractors and reflectors respectively, in the emitting and receiving lens groups. This would allow for more collimated light than if only used for the receiving lens group. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G.
Regarding claim 8, Henderson in view of Cox, Cull, Samy, and Olivier teaches the Lidar apparatus according to claim 7 wherein.
an infrared antireflective film is arranged on the front surface and/or the rear surface of the refractor; and/or
an infrared high-reflective film is arranged on the front surface of the reflector (Olivier, Para [0066] lin.1-10, the use of near-infrared light for emission, Para [0076] lin. 9-16, the use of a coating to either allow (antireflective) or block (high-reflective) desired wavelengths of light).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKI HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-6595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ZAKI KEHINDE HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Samy et al. "Foveated fisheye lens design using an angle-variant distortion projection function," Optical Review, 2015, Vol. 22, No. 6, pages 919-927, submitted in IDS filed on 7/31/2023.