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 1-31 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20200130793 (hereinafter Seong).
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 (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).
Regarding Claim 2, Seong 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 shows return light reflecting off mirror 300 and then bypassing deflector 200 to arrive at receiver 400).
Regarding Claim 3, Seong 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] 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, Seong 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, Seong 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] describes scanner 200 performing high speed measurement in the vertical direction. FIGS. 12-13 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, Seong 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 illustrates polygonal mirror 300 having reflective surfaces angularly offset to reflect the laser as the polygonal mirror rotates).
Regarding Claim 7, Seong 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 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, Seong 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] describe multi-faceted mirror 300 having reflective surfaces with different inclinations).
Regarding Claim 9, Seong 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] 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, Seong 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. 12 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, Seong 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Seong 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.
Regarding Claim 13, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the scan mirror comprises a galvanometer scanner (mirror 200 as shown in FIG. 6 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 14, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the beam deflector (200) comprises a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device comprising a reflective surface configured to pivot to direct the emitted pulses of light along the first scan axis ([0062] describes that mirror 200 can take the form of a MEMS mirror).
Regarding Claim 15, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the beam deflector comprises a polygon mirror configured to rotate to direct the emitted pulses of light along the first 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 shows polygonal mirror 300. Examiner notes that while mirror 300 is mapped to the scan mirror limitation 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 15, mirror 300 of Seong is mapped to the beam deflector and mirror 200 is mapped to the scan mirror.
Regarding Claim 16, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, wherein the beam deflector comprises an electro-optic device, an acousto-optic device, a liquid-crystal device, a vibrating optical fiber, a resonant-mirror scanner, or an optical phased array ([0062] describes how mirror 200 can take the form of a resonance scanner or an optical phase array, which is also a specific type of electro-optic device).
Regarding Claim 17, Seong 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] 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, Seong 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, Seong 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 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 30, Seong 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).
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 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong in view of Vines, “High Performance Planar Germanium-On-Silicon Single-Photon Avalanche Diode Detectors” 3/6/19 (hereinafter Vines).
Regarding Claim 20, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1 as applied to Claim 1 above, 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 considered analogous art as 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 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).
Claims 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong in view of US PG PUB 2020/0076152 (hereinafter Eichenholz).
Regarding Claim 22, Seong teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, however Seong fails to teach wherein the detector array further comprises an optical filter configured to transmit particular wavelengths of light to the detector elements.
However, Eichenholz teaches wherein the detector array further comprises an optical filter configured to transmit particular wavelengths of light to the detector elements ([0086] – [0087] of Eichenholz describes how an optical filter taking the form of a bandpass filter can be applied to an optical surface of a detector and allows for the transmission of light having wavelengths from 1317-1321nm).
Seong and Eichenholz are both analogous art as they are 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 taught by Eichenholz to the detectors taught by Seong in order to filter out ambient light to help with noise reduction (see end of [0086] of Eichenholz).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Seong and Eichenholz as applied to claim 22 teaches the lidar system of Claim 1, 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 ouput 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).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong in view of US20220359584 (hereinafter Hamasaki).
Regarding Claim 23, Seong 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).
Seong and Hamasaki are both directed to 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 Seong in view of US20200264287 (hereinafter Graefling).
Regarding Claim 24, Seong 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 Seong are both directed to the field of LIDAR devices with 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 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 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).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong in view of WO2023044538 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 27, Seong teaches the lidar system of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach wherein the light source comprises: a seed laser diode 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.
However, Li teaches wherein the light source comprises: a seed laser diode (101, see FIG. 5A and page 7 line 6) configured to produce seed light; and an optical amplifier (102, page 7 line 7) 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 fibre amplifier).
Seong and Li both describe LIDAR systems with details regarding optical elements of the laser scanner and are therefore both analogous art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the conventional light source described in Seong with a seed laser / amplifier configuration taught by Li for the increased flexibility it gives to allow for variation of amplification of laser light over time (page 9 lines 14-17 of Li, describes this advantage).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Seong and Li 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 a 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 29, the combination of Seong and Li teaches the lidar system of Claim 28, wherein the beam deflector is configured to direct each emitted pulse of light along the first scan axis by angularly deflecting each emitted pulse of light along the first scan axis according to the particular wavelength of the emitted pulse of light (page 14 lines 13-14 of Li describes the use of a dispersive component 504 to steer light 503 over a first dimension and do so based on the wavelength of the emitted light. See close up view 511 in FIG. 5A showing variance in output based on wavelength).
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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/093,055 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 anticipates the limitations of the instant claims as shown below (instant claims are shown in plain text, with the limitations of claim 19 and the claims from which it depends are in bold). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1:
A lidar system comprising: (A lidar system comprising:, CL1)
a light source configured to emit pulses of light (a wavelength tunable light source configured to emit pulses of light, CL1);
a scanner configured to scan the emitted pulses of light across a field of regard of the lidar system (a scanner configured to scan the emitted pulses of light across a field of regard of the lidar system, CL1), the scanner comprising:
a beam deflector configured to direct each emitted pulse of light along a first scan axis (a beam deflector configured to angularly deflect each emitted pulse of light along a first scan axis, CL1); and
a scan mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a second scan axis different from the first scan axis (a scan mirror configured to scan the emitted pulses of light along a second scan axis different from the first scan axis, CL1);
a receiver comprising a one-dimensional detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements arranged along a direction corresponding to the first scan axis (receiver comprises a one-dimensional detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements arranged along a direction corresponding to the first scan axis, CL19), 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 (receiver 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, CL1); and
determine a time of arrival of the received pulse of light (determine a time of arrival of the received pulse of light, CL1); 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 (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, CL1).
Regarding Claim 2:
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 received pulse of light is part of an input beam of light, the input beam comprising a plurality of received pulses of light, CL19), wherein the input beam, prior to being detected by the receiver, is reflected by the scan mirror and bypasses the beam deflector (the input beam, prior to being directed to the receiver, is reflected by the scan mirror and bypasses the beam deflector, CL19).
Claims 27-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/093,055 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 anticipates the limitations of the instant claims as shown below (instant claims are shown in plain text, with the limitations of claim 3 and the claims from which it depends are in bold). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 27:
The lidar system of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises:
a seed laser diode configured to produce seed light (the light source comprises:
a wavelength-tunable seed laser diode configured to produce seed light, CL2); 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 (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, CL2).
Regarding Claim 28:
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 a plurality of different wavelengths (seed laser diode comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser configured to produce the seed light at the plurality of different wavelengths, CL3),
wherein each of the emitted pulses of light has a particular wavelength of the plurality of different wavelengths (each emitted pulse of light having a particular wavelength of a plurality of different wavelengths, CL1).
Regarding Claim 29.
The lidar system of claim 28, wherein the beam deflector is configured to direct each emitted pulse of light along the first scan axis by angularly deflecting each emitted pulse of light along the first scan axis according to the particular wavelength of the emitted pulse of light (beam deflector configured to angularly deflect each emitted pulse of light along a first scan axis according to the particular wavelength of the emitted pulse of light, CL1).
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