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 . Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it includes the limitation “wherein in an ideal case the measured receiver output signal has a shape of an expected receiver output signal”. MPEP 2173.05(d) requires the metes and bounds of a claim to be clearly set forth. Requiring an apparatus claim to make a particular measurement in an ideal case leaves it unclear as to the scope of protection of the claim as the specification provides no clear standard as to what constitutes an ideal case, which also leaves the claim unclear as to whether the measured receiver output has signal components with a bipolar shape.
Claim 1 also lacks clarity in that it requires an “expected” receiver output signal to be assigned to light pulses of the return signal. The specification never specifies at what point, how or even whether the system generates the expected receiver output signal. The terminology of “expected” makes it seem like this is just what the system expects the receiver output to look like. This term is first introduced in [0015] as more of a concept relating to the measured receiver output signal as having signal components of bipolar shape in a case where the operating environment was completely free of noise. A read of the specification suggests that the expected receiver output signal is instead used as a basis for creating the reference signal. Appropriate correction or explanation with citations to the body of the specification is required.
Regarding Claim 4, it purports to depend from itself. This creates a circular reference and is therefore considered to render the claim indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Claim 4 has been reviewed and rejected with the assumption of it depending instead from Claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16-17, the phrase "particularly wherein" renders these claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Deletion of the term particularly from claims 8 and 16-17 would address this issue.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, both claims describe “A distance measuring module”, making it ambiguous as to whether claims 10 and 11 relate to the distance measuring module of claim 1 since they purport to claim a new distance measuring module. Changing the limitation to “The distance measuring module” would address this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9 and 12-15, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from one of the rejected base claims 1, 4, 10 and/or 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz et al, “High-Resolution Low-Sidelobe Laser Ranging Based on Incoherent Pulse Compression” (hereinafter Kravitz) in view of Chang et al, “Spectral Efficiency Limit of Bipolar Signaling in Incoherent Optical CDMA Systems” (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmitz teaches an opto-electronic distance measuring module (FIG. 3, shows a LADAR system) configured for use in a surveying device, wherein the distance measuring module comprises an emission unit with a laser diode or a low power fiber laser (FIG. 3, see laser diode) and is configured to provide for
emission of light pulses by the laser diode or the low power fiber laser, wherein the light pulses form a finite emission code sequence with N chips, in particular a code sequence with minimal autocorrelation (paragraph 1 of Section III describes the use of incoherent pulse compression to construct a compressed unipolar sequence from a bipolar code with chips of 200 ps in length, the last paragraph of Section II describes the use of a mismatched filtering process, which is known to have minimal autocorrelation and described in the instant specification as a correlation type with minimal autocorrelation), and
processing of a return signal that corresponds to emitted light pulses returning from a target in the environment to generate a measured receiver output signal (column 2 of FIG. 4 shows a return signal generated by receipt of the compressed unipolar sequence at the receiver), , wherein each of the expected receiver output signal components can be assigned to a respective light pulse (the system of Kravitz teaches receipt of emitted light pulses after bouncing off a target (see FIG. 3 and double arrow between lens and reflector) and consequently, the system of Kravitz would expect a receiver output signal based on the emitted pulses and that expected receiver output signal components are capable of being assigned to a light pulse of the emitted light pulse, see 112 issues with expected receiver output signal limitation described above), wherein the distance measuring module is configured to:
provide a reference signal that is similar to the expected receiver output signal and encodes reference pulses forming a finite reference code sequence with a number of chips larger than N, wherein the reference signal is formed by reference signal components which take up the bipolar shape of the expected receiver output signal components (paragraph 1 of Section II on page 1, describes using the reference signal {bipolar filtering sequence code R} at the receiver for post-detection processing & the final paragraph of Section II on page 2 describes use of a mismatched bipolar filtering code sequence Ṝ that is three times longer than the emission code sequence) and wherein each of the reference signal components can be assigned to a respective reference pulse of the reference code sequence (see FIG. 1b showing bipolar signal components of the reference signal assigned to a bit),
execute a cross-correlation between the measured receiver output signal and the reference signal to generate a cross-correlation function (the final paragraph of section II on page 2 describes performing correlation between the , and
identify and time a compressed pulse in the cross-correlation function (the description of FIG. 4 describes the use of mismatched filters to compress the pulse and FIG. 5 shows timing of the pulse being used to determine distance to a target as an output of the disclosed cross-correlation process).
Kravitz fails to teach the lined through portions of claim 1, however, Chang teaches wherein in an ideal case the measured receiver output signal has a shape of an expected receiver output signal formed by expected receiver output signal components of bipolar shape (see page 1, column 1 of Chang describing teachings of a universal scheme developed to allow transmission of any bipolar code over a unipolar optical channel and at page 2, column 1 goes on to specifically teach converting a unipolar transmission back to its original bipolar form).
Both Kravitz and Chang relate to the transmission of coded optical signals in a medium that is not adapted for carrying bipolar signals (see Kravitz page 1 column 2 describing how only coherent receivers (not incoherent ones) are capable of processing bipolar receivers and Chang page 1 column 1 describes transmission of optical signals over a unipolar optical channel). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Chang to those of Kravitz to improve the receiver taught by Kravitz to convert the received unipolar signal sequence back into a bipolar signal. Doing so would have the advantage of making the received signal closer to the reference signal in shape and as pointed out in Chang on page 1 column 1 would allow for the use of any bipolar code without modification of existing coding / decoding hardware.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the number of chips of the reference code sequence is three times N, four times N, or five times N (the final paragraph of Section II on page 2 of Kravitz describes the reference code sequence as being three times longer than the transmitted sequence).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the emission code sequence is a unipolar pulse sequence of less than 32 pulses (FIG. 1a of Kravitz shows a unipolar pulse sequence of 13 pulses, which is less than 32).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 4, wherein the unipolar pulse sequence corresponds to a code with a bipolar pulse pattern, particularly one of a Barker code, an Ipatiov code, an M-Sequence, and a Legendre sequence, wherein either the negative (19) or positive values of the code with the bipolar pulse pattern are set to zero and in return the light pulses correspond to the positive or negative values of the code with the bipolar pulse pattern (paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section II of Kravitz describes modification of bipolar code into unipolar code and suggests use of a Barker code).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a continuous signal with several extrema, wherein each of the reference signal components is a continuous functional section of the reference signal with two extrema (FIG. 1b of Kravitz shows a series of reference signal components where each component contains two extrema).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the processing of the return signal is provided in such a way that the expected receiver output signal components all have the same temporal signal width, wherein the reference signal is provided in such a way that each of the reference signal components has the same temporal signal width as the expected receiver output signal components (see second 112 rejection of claim 1 as to the ambiguity and meaning of expected receiver output signal components. Generally speaking, since the reference signal is based on the expected receiver output signal, the temporal signal width would be the same. Kravitz also shows transmission and reference signals being of the same temporal width in Figs. 1a and 1b).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a discrete signal with several positive and negative values, wherein each of the reference signal components comprises a positive and a negative value, particularly wherein the positive and negative value have the same absolute value (Kravitz shows in Fig. 1b a reference signal with signal components having positive and negative values with the same absolute value).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches distance measuring module according to claim 8, wherein each of the reference signal components is comprised by two neighboring chips, wherein one of the two neighboring chips comprises the positive value and the other of the two neighboring chips comprises the negative value (FIG. 1b of Kravitz shows a configuration with two neighboring chips corresponding to positive and negative values, see the 5th and 6th neighboring chips).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches a distance measuring module according to claim 8, wherein for the cross- correlation time samples of the measured receiver output signal are taken at times corresponding to a chip-interval of the reference signal, wherein a coding unit of the distance measuring module is configured to control the chip interval of the emission of the finite emission code sequence and sampling points of an analog-to-digital converter of the distance measuring module used for analyzing the measured receiver output signal (page 3, bottom of column 1 Kravitz teaches the use of a sampling interval (50 ps) that is one quarter of the chip interval (200 ps)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches a distance measuring module according to claim 9, wherein for the cross- correlation time samples of the measured receiver output signal are taken at times corresponding to a chip-interval of the reference signal, wherein a coding unit of the distance measuring module is configured to control the chip interval of the emission of the finite emission code sequence and sampling points of an analog-to-digital converter of the distance measuring module used for analyzing the measured receiver output signal (page 3, bottom of column 1 of Kravitz teaches the use of a sampling interval (50 ps) that is one quarter of the chip interval (200 ps) and the graphs in Figs. 1a – 1b of Kravitz shows a correspondence between the width of the chip-interval and the encoded bits).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teach the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the reference signal is provided by an optimization using a merit function, wherein the merit function is a weighted sum of functions expressing side lobe ratios of cross-correlations between a common reference function and different candidate receiver output signals associated to expected receiver output signals for different double-echoes of a received light pulse, wherein the different double-echoes differ from each other by different pulse spacings between the echoes of the received light pulse and the common reference function is associated to one of the different pulse spacings (page 2, column 1 of Kravitz describes using mismatched filters with various coefficients outside of +/- 1 values that constitute a merit function and that are implemented in Kravitz specifically for sidelobe suppression, Kravitz in FIG. 1a also shows adjacent pulses and varied spacing between pulses that are correlated using the mismatched filter).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz in view of Chang as applied to claim 4 and further in view of DE 102012112985 (hereinafter Schmitz).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teaches the distance measuring module according to claim 4, however the combination fails to teach wherein additional chips with value zero are added between neighboring chips of the code with the bipolar pulse pattern to form the emission code sequence.
However, Schmitz teaches wherein additional chips with value zero are added between neighboring chips of the code with the bipolar pulse pattern to form the emission code sequence ([0029] of Schmitz describes the addition of zeroes on both sides a transmission to help effect cross-correlation between the transmission and filter code sequence)
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to improve the combination of Kravitz and Chang by adding zeroes to the transmit code sequence as taught by Schmitz in order to assist with cross-correlation (see [0029] of Schmitz).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz in view of Chang as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teach the distance measuring module according to claim 1, configured to identify the compressed pulse in a digital representation of the cross-correlation function (see Figs 4 and 5 of Kravitz), and to provide upon detection of the compressed pulse an interpolation of the compressed pulse between sampling points of the digital representation of the cross-correlation function to time the compressed pulse (Fig. 5 of Kravitz shows cross-correlation being used to determine distance based on return timing of the compressed pulse), but fails to teach wherein a sampling interpolation algorithm configured to locate a peak of the compressed pulse with sub-picosecond accuracy is used or wherein a resampling method to handle a sampled compressed pulse as an analog continuous signal is used which yields a precision down to the Cramer Rao limit
However, AAPA teaches wherein a sampling interpolation algorithm configured to locate a peak of the compressed pulse with sub-picosecond accuracy is used or wherein a resampling method to handle a sampled compressed pulse as an analog continuous signal is used which yields a precision down to the Cramer Rao limit ([0030] and [0091] of the instant specification describes the claimed interpolation is performed using the so-called waveform digitizing (WFD) method to achieve sub-picosecond accuracy and that WFD can also implement a resampling method to yield full resolution and precision down to the Cramer Rao limit. [0032] of the instant specification admits that WFD is a well-known LIDAR technology associated with pulsed coding methods).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to apply the Applicant Admitted well-known WFD method to the system of Kravitz and Chang to achieve higher accuracy.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 10,545,240 (hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teach the distance measuring module according to claim 1, wherein the distance measuring module is configured to: coordinate the emission of the light pulses to generate finite emission code sequences with N chips , wherein the finite emission code sequences is associated to a respective expected receiver output signal formed by expected receiver output signal components of bipolar shape, wherein the expected receiver output signal components can be assigned to a respective light pulse, and
to provide reference signals, wherein each of the different reference signals is similar to a expected receiver output signals and encodes reference pulses forming a finite reference code sequence with a number of chips larger than N,
execute cross-correlations between the measured receiver output signal with reference signals to generate cross-correlation functions associated to the reference signals, and
identify and time a compressed pulse in the cross-correlation functions and associate the compressed pulses to a finite emission code sequences.
The combination of Kravitz and Chang teach the above as described in the rejection of claim 1 but fail to teach the use of different transmission sequences and reference signals.
However, Campbell teaches the missing limitations. In particular, column 36 lines 51 – 60 of Campbell describe how different pulse characteristics can be encoded with different pulse characteristics in order to eliminate range ambiguity by ensuring that the lidar system knows which of a plurality of pulses are being received at the receiver at a particular time.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Campbell to the combination of Kravitz and Chang in order to improve the system so that the LIDAR system is able to distinguish emitted pulses from each other. Campbell at Col 36 lines 51-60 describes this problem and suggests the variation in successive coding.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kravitz, Chang and Campbell teach the distance measuring module according to claim 14, configured to provide a sequential emission pattern of the different finite emission code sequences and compare the sequential emission pattern with the timing of the compressed pulses associated to each of the cross-correlation functions to provide for range ambiguity correction (Campbell at Col 36 lines 51-60 describe how the encoding variation avoids problems associated with range ambiguity).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 20170016981 (hereinafter Hinderling).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kravitz and Chang teach a surveying device for the three-dimensional spatial measurement of an environment by an optical distance measuring beam, (page 1 of Kravitz teaches implantation as a three dimensional imager) wherein the surveying device comprises an opto-electronic distance measuring module according to claim 1, but the combination fails to teach “particularly wherein the surveying device is embodied as tachymeter, total station, laser profiler, or laser scanner,”.
Hinderling teaches particularly wherein the surveying device is embodied as tachymeter, total station, laser profiler, or laser scanner ([0002] of Hinderling describes surveying instruments as including a survey instrument using a time of flight method can include a laser scanner or total station).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Hinderling to embody the system of Kravitz and Chang as a laser scanner or total station since paragraph [0002] of Hinderling lists these as good commercial implementation platforms and given that Hinderling and the combination of Kravitz and Chang both describe distance measurement and 3D imaging using time-of-flight techniques with emitted lasers.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kravitz in view of Chang and Campbell as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Hinderling.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kravitz, Chang and Campbell teach a surveying device for the three-dimensional spatial measurement of an environment by an optical distance measuring beam, (page 1 of Kravitz teaches implantation as a three dimensional imager) wherein the surveying device comprises an opto-electronic distance measuring module according to claim 14, but the combination fails to teach “particularly wherein the surveying device is embodied as tachymeter, total station, laser profiler, or laser scanner,”.
Hinderling teaches particularly wherein the surveying device is embodied as tachymeter, total station, laser profiler, or laser scanner ([0002] of Hinderling describes surveying instruments as including a survey instrument using a time of flight method can include a laser scanner or total station).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Hinderling to embody the system of Kravitz, Chang and Campbell as a laser scanner or total station since paragraph [0002] of Hinderling lists these as good commercial implementation platforms and given that Hinderling and the combination of Kravitz and Chang both describe distance measurement and 3D imaging using time-of-flight techniques with emitted lasers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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 5712703603. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645