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 based on an application filed in Europe on 12/20/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the European application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/19/2022, 4/10/2023 and 8/9/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 12/19/2022 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (CN 110632578 A).
With respect to claim 1, Zhu et al disclose: A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a sensor configured to detect input signals [ taught by collector (12) and pixel unit (121) ]; an emitter configured to emit output signals [ taught by emitter (11) and light source (111) ]; and a controller configured to control the emitter to emit the output signals and control the sensor to read the input signals during a plurality of scan cycles [ taught by processing circuit (13); page 6 of the provided translation states, “…light source 111 emitting a light beam to the outside under the control of the processing circuit 13, such as in one embodiment, light source 111 emits pulsed light beam with certain frequency (pulse period) under the control of the processing circuit 13, which can be used for direct time-of-flight method (TOF) Direct measurement…”; page 6 of the provided translation further states, “…a processing circuit 13 connected with the emitter 11 and the collector 12, synchronizing the emitter 11 and collector 12 of trigger signal to calculate the time of light beam emitted by the transmitter 11 and is needed by the collector 12…” ], each scan cycle being separated from another scan cycle by a spacer period, the controller configured to vary a length of spacer periods between the plurality of scan cycles [ figure 4(a) shows random time spacing wherein the period (delta t) varies ].
Page 10 of the provided translation states, “…In one embodiment, the maximum measuring range is also assumed to be Dmax= 150m, n=100000, if the average value of the random pulse period much smaller than 1us in the previous embodiment, the frame period T 10ms, frame rate up to 100fps…”; thus, anticipating setting a spacer range as set forth by claim 2.
Page 7 of the translation states, “…In one embodiment, the maximum measuring range is also assumed that 1us is Dmax = 150m, n=100000, but the pulse period Δ t=100ns, far less than in the previous embodiment, the frame period T = 10ms, frame rate up to 100fps…”; thus, teaching a spacer period above 5 nanoseconds as set forth by claim 3.
Claim 4 is anticipated by the random time spacing (delta t) shown by figure 4a.
The translation of the abstract states, “…A system and method for time-coding time-of-flight distance measurement, the system comprising: a transmitter, the optical signal pulse has double random time codes configured to emit; said pulse train comprises N second random time-encoded form transmitted pulse group…”; thus, anticipating claim 5.
Page 10 of the translation states, “…in the present embodiment, the pulse will be transmitted in the preset interval, i.e. random (pseudo random) pulse is encoded at random time…”; thus, anticipating claim 6.
Page 6 of the translation states, “…collector 12 comprises a pixel unit 121, an imaging lens unit 122, at least a portion of the modulated light beam imaging lens unit 122 and reflected back by the object guided to the pixel unit 121. array pixel unit in the one embodiment, the pixel unit 121 by single photon avalanche photodiode (SPAD), also can be composed of multiple SPAD pixel, array the size of array pixel unit represents the resolution of the depth camera, such as 320x240 and the like…”; thus, anticipating claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, Zhu et al disclose: A method for controlling at least one LIDAR device [ taught by the operation of the device of figure 1 ], the method comprising: driving a plurality of scan cycles in which output signals from an emitter are coordinated with reading input signals from a sensor cycles [ taught by processing circuit (13); page 6 of the provided translation states, “…light source 111 emitting a light beam to the outside under the control of the processing circuit 13, such as in one embodiment, light source 111 emits pulsed light beam with certain frequency (pulse period) under the control of the processing circuit 13, which can be used for direct time-of-flight method (TOF) Direct measurement…”; page 6 of the provided translation further states, “…a processing circuit 13 connected with the emitter 11 and the collector 12, synchronizing the emitter 11 and collector 12 of trigger signal to calculate the time of light beam emitted by the transmitter 11 and is needed by the collector 12…” ]; separating each scan cycle by a spacer period [ figure 4a shows spacer periods (delta t) ]; and varying a length of spacer periods between the plurality of scan cycles [ figure 4a shows variable delta t values ].
Claim 15 is anticipated by the variable delta t values shown by figure 4a.
Page 10 of the translation states, “…in the present embodiment, the pulse will be transmitted in the preset interval, i.e. random (pseudo random) pulse is encoded at random time…”; thus, anticipating claim 16.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN212694039 U).
With respect to claim 18, Li et al disclose: A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device [ taught by figure 1 ] comprising: a sensor comprising an array of pixels arranged in a plurality of lines, each line of pixels configured to detect input signals [ figure 3 teaches an array of defining a plurality of lines ]; and a controller configured to read the input signals from each line of pixels [ taught by the readout circuit (40) in figure 3 ], the controller configured to read each line of the plurality of lines non-sequentially.
Figure 3 does not explicitly teach reading each line of the pixel array non-sequentially.
However, page 7 of the translation states, “…In some embodiments, in each measuring stage, the activation of the sub-light source array and the corresponding sub-pixel array is not necessarily moved from left to right or from right to left order, also can be non-sequential activation to reduce crosstalk, such as based on pseudo-random sequence…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in configuring the device of Li et al to have read lines in a non-sequential manner, when following the suggested alternative embodiment taught by page 7 of the translation in order to reduce crosstalk.
Claim 19 is rejected by the subject matter of Li et al, as applied to claim 18, because page 7 of the translation taught using non-sequential activation based on a pseudo-random sequence.
Claim 20 is rejected by the subject matter of Li et al, as applied to claim 18, because figure 3 shows the pixels arranged in rows and columns.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (CN 110632578 A).
With regard to claim 13, Zhu et al discloses: accumulating time of flight data for detected input signals over the plurality of scan cycles for the at least one LIDAR device [ taught by creating the histogram in figure 3b ]; and noise filtering the accumulated time of flight data.
Zhu et al does not explicitly teach noise filtering the accumulated time of flight data.
However, page 11 of the translation states, “…In one embodiment, the pulse waveform in the histogram to find, it can form by setting the threshold value to search, is higher than the value of the threshold value is retained, is lower than the value of the threshold value is considered as noise…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have been reasonably expected to have enabled noise filtering in the device of Zhu et al, when using the suggested embodiment of setting a threshold.
Claims 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (CN 110632578 A) in view of Li et al (CN212694039 U).
With respect to claim 7, Zhu et al disclose: wherein: the sensor comprises an array of pixels arranged in a plurality of lines [ page 6 of the translation states, “…collector 12 comprises a pixel unit 121, an imaging lens unit 122, at least a portion of the modulated light beam imaging lens unit 122 and reflected back by the object guided to the pixel unit 121. array pixel unit in the one embodiment, the pixel unit 121 by single photon avalanche photodiode (SPAD), also can be composed of multiple SPAD pixel, array the size of array pixel unit represents the resolution of the depth camera, such as 320x240 and the like…” ] and the controller is configured to read each line of the plurality of lines non-sequentially.
Zhu et al does not teach reading a plurality of lines in the array non-sequentially.
Figure 3 of Li et al teaches that sensors comprising an array of pixels defining a plurality of lines were known before the effective filing date of the present application wherein page 7 of the translation of Li et al further states, “…“…In some embodiments, in each measuring stage, the activation of the sub-light source array and the corresponding sub-pixel array is not necessarily moved from left to right or from right to left order, also can be non-sequential activation to reduce crosstalk, such as based on pseudo-random sequence…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the device of Zhu et al to read a plurality of lines in the array non-sequentially, when seeking to reduce crosstalk, as taught by Lie et al.
Claim 17 is rejected by the combination of Zhu et al and Li et al, as applied to claim 7.
Claim 8 is met by the combination of Zhu et al and Li et al, as applied to claim 7, because Li et al teaches basing the line reading on a pseudo-random sequence.
Claim 9 is met by the combination of Zhu et al and Li et al, as applied to claim 7, because figure 3 show that an array of pixels was arranged in rows and columns.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (CN 110632578 A) in view of Dong et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0293929).
Claim 11 differs from Zhu et al by explicitly teaching their device is an automotive LIDAR.
Paragraph [0003] of Dong et al teaches that it was known to use a LIDAR on a car.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the device of Zhu et al as an automotive LIDAR because Dong et al taught this was a known application of range measuring LIDAR devices.
With respect to claim 14, Zhu et al disclose: controlling a respective emitter and sensor of each LIDAR device of a plurality of LIDAR devices to perform a respective plurality of scan cycles, each scan cycle being separated by a spacer period [ Zhu et al shows controlling the scan period for a single LIDAR device ]; and varying the length of the spacer periods of the at least one LIDAR device of the plurality of LIDAR devices such that the plurality of scan cycles for each of the plurality of LIDAR devices are out of phase with respect to each other [ Zhu et al teaches varying the spacer periods for a single LIDAR device ].
Zhu et al differs from claim 14 by adjusting the scan cycles of a plurality of LIDAR devices such that the plurality of scan cycles are out of phase.
Figure 4, paragraph [0057] and paragraph [0058] of Dong et al teach that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have applied different time sequences [ note a time shift creates out of phase scan cycles ] to a plurality of LIDAR devices in order to eliminate crosstalk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in adapting the LIDAR of Zhu et al to multiple devices scanning out of phase when seeking to reduce crosstalk among multiple vehicles using the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645