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 1-13, 17-21, 23-28 and 30-31 remain pending following Applicant’s cancellation of claims 14-16, 22 and 29.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer for Application 18/093,055 to obviate the provisional double patenting rejection made in the previous action. Accordingly, the previously raised double patent rejection is overcome.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments to the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the current grounds of rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made against amended claim 1 using previously cited references Seong and Li in combination with newly cited reference US20170307736 (hereinafter Donovan), which describes a multi-wavelength LIDAR system that utilizes an optical filter taking the form of a notch filter that limits passage of different wavelengths to different photodiodes of a photodiode array.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
(a) an amendment to claim 1 introduced creating an already emitted pulses of light or emitting light for the purpose of creating it. This appears to be an error as following emission of emitted pulses it doesn’t make sense to then emit them for the purpose of generating them. Examiner suggests deletion of “to create emitted pulses of light” or “to emit pulses of light” from claim 1 to address what appears to have been an oversite on the part of the practitioner.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13, 17-19, 27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20200130793 (hereinafter Seong) in view of WO2023044538 (hereinafter Li) and further in view of US PG PUB 20170307736 (hereinafter Donovan).
Regarding Claim 1, Seong teaches a lidar system (FIGS. 9-10 & [0078] identifying 9-10 as illustrating a lidar scanning device) comprising:
a light source (100) configured to emit pulses of light ([0087] describes the emission of pulsed waves from transmitting unit 100) ;
a scanner configured to scan the emitted pulses of light across a field of regard of the lidar system (see FIGS. 12-13 showing fields of regard H1-H4), the scanner comprising:
a beam deflector (200) configured to direct each emitted pulse of light along a first scan axis by angularly deflecting each emitted pulse of light along the first scan axis (see longitudinal axis of mirror 300 as shown in FIGS. 9-10); and
a scan mirror (300) configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a second scan axis (defined by an orientation of the faces of mirror 300) different from the first scan axis;
a receiver (400) comprising a one-dimensional detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements (see FIGS. 8-9 and [0087] describing 400 as a multi-channel unit having Nx1 pixels) arranged along a direction corresponding to the first scan axis, wherein the receiver is configured to:
detect a received pulse of light, the received pulse of light comprising a portion of one of the emitted pulses of light scattered by a target located a distance from the lidar system ([0069] describes light being received at mirror 300 after reflecting off an object, [0077] describes receiving light reflected off mirror 300 at receiver 400); and
determine a time of arrival of the received pulse of light;
and
a processor configured to determine the distance from the lidar system to the target based on the time of arrival of the received pulse of light ([0002] describes analysis of the returned laser light to determined distance of the lidar system from the object/target).
As shown by the crossed out limitations above, Seong fails to teach all the limitations of claim 1. However, Li teaches:
wherein each emitted pulse of light of the emitted pulses of light has a wavelength selected from a plurality of different wavelengths, wherein the light source is configured to emit the pulses of light in a non-sequential order such that adjacent wavelengths are not adjacent in time (Li at page 12 lines 8-10 teaches a light source of a LIDAR system with a plurality of wavelength channels and describes how the laser is configured to cycle through a subset of the plurality of wavelength channels. In this way the light source cycling through the subset of channels constitutes non-sequential scanning. Examiner notes that even if the wavelength channels are ordered in wavelength order, cycling through only a subset of the channels would result in at least two adjacent wavelengths not being adjacent in time. Examiner also notes that in [0239] of the instant specification a non-sequential wavelength order is described with great specificity. Since the claims as amended only refer to a non-sequential order without using the non-sequential wavelength order terminology from the specification, it is assumed that the Applicant wishes to pursue a broader claim scope.)
Li also teaches a beam deflector comprising a diffractive optical element (dispersive component 504 of Li, shown in FIG. 5A and described on page 14 lines 16-17 is described as including one or more diffractive gratings)
Seong and Li both describe scanning LIDAR systems with a focus on the arrangement of optical elements of the laser scanner. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the deflector taking the form of mirror 200 taught by Seong with the dispersive component 504 that includes a series of diffractive gratings and prisms as doing so in conjunction with the beam wavelength modulation would remove the need for moving parts in the deflector and thereby address the durability issues identified in paragraphs [0043] and [0097] of Seong, which describes rotation of various components in the scanner as negatively impacting reliability.
Neither Seong nor Li explicitly describe a variable optical filter governing limiting transmission to certain wavelengths to certain pixels on a receiver array.
However, Donovan teaches the receiver further comprising a variable optical filter configured to transmit different wavelengths of light to different ones of the detector elements, wherein the different wavelengths vary with a position along the direction ([0156] describe the use of a notch filter in front of photodiodes to make different photodiodes sensitive to different wavelengths of light)
Donovan and the combination of Seong and Li are both directed to multi-wavelength LIDAR systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration taught by the combination of Seong and Li to incorporate a series of notch filters over the vertical photodiode array. Doing so would be obvious in light of Donovan’s statement in [0156] that filtering the photodiode array in this way allows for independent monitoring of multiple wavelengths of light.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the received pulse of light is part of an input beam of light, the input beam comprising a plurality of received pulses of light, wherein the input beam, prior to being detected by the receiver (400), is reflected by the scan mirror (300) and bypasses the beam deflector (FIGS. 9 and 10 of Seong shows return light reflecting off mirror 300 and then bypassing deflector 200 to arrive at receiver 400).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 2, wherein the received pulse of light is directed to a portion of the detector array (400) corresponding to a direction along the first scan axis at which the emitted pulse of light was directed by the beam deflector (FIGS. 9-10 and [0079]-[0080] of Seong show/describe how variations in direction along the first scan axis by deflector 200 correspond to changes in a position of return light at receiver 400).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 2, wherein:
the emitted pulses of light are part of an output beam of light, the output beam of light having a beam diameter of d1 (FIG. 9, see d1 in annotated FIG. 9 of Seong below);
the input beam of light has a beam diameter of d2, wherein d2 is greater than d1 (FIG. 9, see d2 in annotated FIG. 9 below);
an aperture of the beam deflector has a length or diameter of s1 (see s1 in annotated FIG. 9 below, [0171] of instant application describes aperture of the beam deflector as being a reflective surface or an opening the beam travels through); and
an aperture of the scan mirror has a length or diameter of s2 (see s2 in annotated FIG. 9 below, [0171] of instant application describes the aperture of the scan mirror as a reflective surface of the scan mirror), wherein:
s2 is greater than s1 (annotated FIG. 9 shows s2 > s1),
s2 is greater than or equal to d2 (annotated FIG. 9 shows s2 >= d2) ,
S1 is greater than or equal to d1 (annotated FIG. 9 shows s1 >= d1), and
PNG
media_image1.png
869
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
S1 is less than d2 (annotated FIG. 9 shows s1 < d2).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein a scanning speed of the beam deflector is greater than or equal to four times a scanning speed of the scan mirror ([0066] of Seong describes scanner 200 performing high speed measurement in the vertical direction. FIGS. 12-13 of Seong show exemplary fields of regard H1-H4 for the lidar scanner and FIG. 13 in particular shows how the scans pattern runs vertically up/down. Given that the vertical travel of the scan pattern is shown to be more than twice as long as the spacing between vertical scan lines the travel speed in the vertical direction made by the beam deflector would be at least four times the scanning speed of the scan mirror)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the scan mirror comprises a polygon mirror configured to rotate to scan the emitted pulses of light along the second scan axis, wherein the polygon mirror comprises a plurality of reflective surfaces angularly offset from one another along a periphery of the polygon mirror, each reflective surface configured to reflect, in sequence as the polygon mirror rotates, a portion of the emitted pulses of light (FIG. 9 of Seong illustrates polygonal mirror 300 having reflective surfaces angularly offset to reflect the laser as the polygonal mirror rotates).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 6, wherein: the polygon mirror comprises S reflective surfaces, wherein S is an integer greater than or equal to 2; the polygon mirror is configured to rotate at a rotation speed of R revolutions per second; the portion of the emitted pulses of light reflected from each of the reflective surfaces of the polygon mirror are associated with a single scan across at least a portion of the field of regard of the lidar system; and the lidar system is configured to produce point clouds at a frame rate of F frames per second according to an expression F=SxR (FIGS. 5A-5B, 7-12, 14A-14B of Seong show two mirror scanner configurations that includes a polygonal mirror having four reflective surfaces that rotate at a rotational speed R. Since each reflective face creates its own complete scan in this configuration, a complete rotation of the polygonal mirror would create SxR frames per second.)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 6, wherein: the polygon mirror is configured to rotate about a rotation axis; and one or more of the reflective surfaces of the polygon mirror have non-zero angles with respect to the rotation axis of the polygon mirror ([0074] of Seong describe multi-faceted mirror 300 having reflective surfaces with different inclinations).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 8, wherein:
each of the reflective surfaces has one of r different angles with respect to the rotation axis, wherein r is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to a number of reflective surfaces of the polygon mirror;
the field of regard of the lidar system is subdivided into r regions; and
each reflective surface of the polygon mirror is configured to scan one of the portions of the emitted pulses of light along the second scan axis within one of the r regions of the field of regard (see [0074] of Seong describing reflective surfaces of mirror 300 arranged with different inclinations and [0075] describing a configuration where mirror 300 has reflective surfaces with four different inclinations corresponding to four measurement altitudes (H1 - H4), as shown in FIG. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 9, wherein: the beam deflector is configured to direct the emitted pulses of light over an angular range of α along the first scan axis; and the field of regard has an angular extent along the first scan axis of greater than or equal to 80% of rxα and less than or equal to rxα (FIG. 8 of Seong shows a configuration in which the varied inclinations of the four faces of the polygonal mirror 300 are angled such that there is no overlap between H1-H4 and so the total field of regard would be rxα).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 9, wherein two or more of the reflective surfaces have equal angles with respect to the rotation axis of the polygon mirror, wherein the two or more reflective surfaces are each configured to scan one of the portions of the emitted pulses of light along the second scan axis within a same one of the r regions of the field of regard ([0074] of Seong describe multi-faceted mirror 300 having reflective surfaces with different inclinations & FIG. 13 shows a configuration in which fields of view overlap rendering obvious the use of at least two surfaces of the same inclination, which would provide overlapping coverage of one the scan regions).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 9, wherein: the polygon mirror comprises S reflective surfaces, wherein S is greater than or equal to r; the polygon mirror is configured to rotate at a rotation speed of R revolutions per second; and the lidar system is configured to produce point clouds at a frame rate of R frames per second, wherein each point cloud comprises pixels corresponding to pulses of light reflected from each of the S reflective surfaces (FIGS. 12 and 13 of Seong both show configurations in which pulses of light are reflected from each of the reflective surfaces into a different region according to the inclination of a particular surface).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the scan mirror comprises a galvanometer scanner (mirror 200 as shown in FIG. 6 of Seong and described in [0064] describes the use of modulated magnetic fields to drive rotation of a mirror, which is how a galvanometer scanner works. Examiner notes that while mirror 200 is mapped to beam deflector in Claim 1, since claim 1 is unspecific as to whether the laser reflects off the beam deflector before it reflects off the scan mirror, for purposes of the rejection of claim 13, mirror 200 of Seong is mapped to the beam deflector and mirror 300 is mapped to the scan mirror).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the received pulse of light is part of an input beam of light comprising a plurality of received pulses of light; and the receiver further comprises a lens configured to focus the input beam of light onto the detector array, wherein each received pulse of light is directed to a portion of the detector array corresponding to a direction along the first scan axis at which a corresponding emitted pulse of light was directed by the beam deflector. (FIGS. 9-10 and [0079]-[0080] of Seong describe how variations in direction along the first scan axis by deflector 200 correspond to changes in a position of return light at receiver 400).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the second scan axis is substantially orthogonal to the first scan axis ([0061] describes mirror 200 reflects the laser beam in vertical directions and mirror 300 rotates to reflect the laser beam in the horizontal direction. Vertical and horizontal directions are known to be orthogonal).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein each detector element is configured to detect received pulses of light originating from a particular direction with respect to the first scan axis (Variations shown between FIGS. 9 and 10 of Seong indicate how a position of incoming light on the detector varies based on its vertical position on mirror 300, which corresponds to the first axis).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Seong Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of claim 1 as described above, wherein the light source comprises: a seed laser diode (101, see FIG. 5A and page 7 line 6 of Li) configured to produce seed light; and an optical amplifier configured to amplify the seed light to produce the emitted pulses of light, wherein the optical amplifier comprises a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA), a fiber-optic amplifier, or a SOA followed by a fiber-optic amplifier (page 7 lines 9-12, describes the amplifier taking the form of an SOA or fiber amplifier).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Seong, Li and Donovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 27, wherein the seed laser diode is a sampled-grating distributed Bragg reflector (SG-DBR) laser configured to produce the seed light at the plurality of different wavelengths (page 9 lines 26-31 of Li describe the use of a SG-DBR configured to produce light at different wavelengths), wherein each of the emitted pulses of light has a particular wavelength of the plurality of different wavelengths (page 9 lines 26-31 also describes how the laser can switch between wavelength outputs in less than 100 nanoseconds).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the time of arrival of the received pulse of light corresponds to a round-trip time (T) for the portion of the one of the emitted pulses of light to travel to the target and back to the lidar system; and the distance (D) to the target is determined from an expression D= c*T/2, wherein c is a speed of light (Claim 30 describes laws of physics governing the distance light travels over time and is consequently anticipated by every LIDAR device utilizing pulsed emissions and consequently is anticipated by Seong).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Vines, “High Performance Planar Germanium-On-Silicon Single-Photon Avalanche Diode Detectors” 3/6/19 (hereinafter Vines).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, but does not address the types of materials to be used in a LIDAR detector or more specifically whether the detector array comprises silicon (Si) detector elements, silicon-germanium (SiGe) detector elements, silicon-germanium-tin (SiGeSn) detector elements, or indium-gallium-arsenide (InGaAs) detector elements.
However, Vines teaches wherein the detector array comprises silicon (Si) detector elements, silicon-germanium (SiGe) detector elements, silicon-germanium-tin (SiGeSn) detector elements, or indium-gallium-arsenide (InGaAs) detector elements (page 2 of Vines describes that APD and SPAD type LIDAR sensors can be made from Si, SiGe or InGaAs).
Seong and Vines are both are directed to the field of LIDAR. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate any one of the sensor material types suggested by Vines when implementing the LIDAR system taught by Seong. For example, a Silicon material could be used to help with cost control, InGaAs material could be used for a more commercially available better understood material capable of handling longer infrared wavelengths and a GeSi material could be used for its cheaper cost, ability to sense longer infrared wavelength detection and low afterpulsing effects.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Seong, Li, Donnovan and Vines teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein each detector element is an avalanche photodiode (APD), a PN photodiode, a PIN photodiode, or a quantum dot photodetector (page 2 of Vines specifically recites the use of an avalanche photodiode, as a type of LIDAR detector element).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong, Li and Donovan as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of US20220359584 (hereinafter Hamasaki).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Seong, Li and Donovan teaches the method of Claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each detector element of the one-dimensional detector array comprises an anode and a cathode wherein the anodes of the one-dimensional detector array are electrically isolated from one another, and the cathodes of the one-dimensional detector array are electrically isolated from one another.
However, Hamaski teaches wherein each detector element of the one-dimensional detector array comprises an anode (221) and a cathode (211) wherein the anodes of the one-dimensional detector array are electrically isolated from one another (250 / 251), and the cathodes of the one-dimensional detector array are electrically isolated from one another (see FIGS. 40 – 41 and [0441] that describes how pixel separation layer 250 isolates the exemplary pixel from adjacent pixels of photodetector 200).
Hamasaki and the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan both describe imaging sensors suitable for use in lidar applications. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to improve the one dimensional imaging sensor disclosed by Seong to incorporate the discrete cathode and anode electrodes taught by Hamasaki. The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to reduce crosstalk between pixels as is described in [0439] of Hamasaki.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan as applied to Claim 1 in view of US20200264287 (hereinafter Graefling).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein: the received pulse of light is incident on one or more detector elements of the detector array (see FIGS. 9-10 of Seong); the one or more detector elements are configured to produce one or more respective photocurrent signals corresponding to the received pulse of light;
Seong however fails to specifically teach where the receiver further comprises an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the one or more photocurrent signals to produce one or more voltage signals, each voltage signal corresponding to one of the photocurrent signals.
However, Graefling teaches where the receiver further comprises an electronic amplifier configured to amplify the one or more photocurrent signals to produce one or more voltage signals, each voltage signal corresponding to one of the photocurrent signals (see FIG. 3 where Graefling describes a LIDAR system at [0026] that includes a one-dimensional photodetector array, and at [0073] shows the use of amplifiers taking the form of transimpedance amplifiers, shown in receiver circuit 32 of FIG. 3, where each TIA amplifies and converts currents supplied by the photodetectors into voltage signals).
Graefling and the combination of Seong, Li and Donnovan are both directed to LIDAR devices utilizing one dimensional detector arrays. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve the configuration of Seong by using transimpedance amplifiers to boost the signal provided by return pulses for better object detection.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Seong, Li, Donnovan and Graefling teaches the lidar system of Claim 24, wherein the receiver further comprises a pulse-detection circuit comprising a plurality of comparators coupled to a respective plurality of time-to-digital converters (TDCs), wherein: each comparator is configured to receive one of the voltage signals and provide an electrical-edge signal to a corresponding TDC when the received voltage signal rises above or falls below a particular threshold voltage; and the corresponding TDC is configured to produce a time value corresponding to a time when the electrical-edge signal was received, wherein the time of arrival of the received pulse of light is determined based on one or more time values produced by one or more of the TDCs ([0055] of Graefling teaches the use of comparators and TDCs for processing and detecting objects associated with incoming LIDAR data).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Seong, Li, Donnovan and Graefling teaches the lidar system of Claim 24, wherein the receiver further comprises a Nxn electronic multiplexer (31-3 shown in FIG. 3 of Graefling) disposed between the detector array and the electronic amplifier (FIG. 3 shows 31-3 between the detector array 31-1 and amplifiers 32), wherein: N is a number of inputs of the multiplexer, and n is a number of outputs of the multiplexer; the one-dimensional detector array comprises N detector elements, and each input of the multiplexer is coupled to one of the detector elements; the electronic amplifier comprises n inputs, and each output of the multiplexer is coupled to one of the inputs of the electronic amplifier, wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1; and the multiplexer is configured to couple the one or more photocurrent signals from the one or more detector elements to one or more respective inputs of the electronic amplifier ([0065] of Graefling describes transfer of photocurrent from array 31-1 to receiver circuit 32).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong, Li and Donovan as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US PG PUB 2020/0076152 (hereinafter Eichenholz).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Seong, Li and Donovan teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, but the combination fails to teach the remaining specific operating parameters.
However, Eichenholz teaches wherein the emitted pulses of light have optical characteristics comprising: one or more wavelengths between 1400 nanometers (nm) and 1600 nm ([0026] of Eichenholz describes a pulsed laser emitter operating between 1400 and 1600nm); a pulse energy between 0.01 uJ and 100 uJ ([0022] of Eichenholz describes output beam with pulse energy of 1 microjoule); a pulse repetition frequency between 80 kHz and 10 MHz ([0024] of Eichenholz describes use of a pulse repetition frequency of between 80 kHz and 10 MHz); and a pulse duration between 1 ns and 100 ns ([0024] of Eichenholz describes exemplary pulse durations of 1 ns, 2 ns, 5 ns, 10 ns, 20 ns, 50 ns and 100ns).
Eichenholz and the combination of Seong, Li and Donovan are both directed to LIDAR systems using polygonal scanning elements. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the bandpass filter and specific operating parameters taught by Eichenholz to the system taught by Seong in order to filter out ambient light to help with noise reduction (see end of [0086] of Eichenholz).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights