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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant and listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
28 June 2023
15 August 2024
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“2740” as shown in Fig. 27
“2840” as shown in Fig. 28
“3705” and “3720a-d” as shown in Fig. 37
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word count exceeds the suggested 150-word count. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0208] includes several typographical errors in reference to “3710a-d”, some of which occur in lines 2, 4, and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, there are numerous issues where there is an antecedent basis issue, where “a” and “the” have not appropriately been assigned but it is clear enough what is being referenced. Some examples are as underlined below:
operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a first optical signal having a first power level comprises operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a first optical signal for a first number of cycles and operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a first number of time bins comprises operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a first number of time bins for each of the first number of cycles, wherein operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a second optical signal having a second power level comprises operating the plurality of emitter elements a to emit a second optical signal for a second number of cycles and operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a second number of time bins comprises operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a second number of time bins for each of the second number of cycles.
There is additionally a typo in line 8, where it reads “elements a to emit”.
Claim 12 has similar objections to claim 2, including the typo “elements a to emit” in lines 3 and 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 claims 7 and 17, the limitation “and processing counts for the time bins beginning with the initial time bin and extending to the second time bin using a first algorithm, and processing counts for the time bins beginning with the time bin following the second time bin and extending to the first time bin using a second algorithm” is unclear in how, exactly, the second algorithm is allocated. It is understood that the first algorithm is intended to be applied to the time frame between the initial time bin and the second time bin, however it is unclear how the second algorithm can be assigned to a time frame including time bins “following the second time bin and extending to the first time bin”, as the second time bin exists after the first time bin. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the second algorithm being intended to be applied to time bins between the time bin immediately following the first time bin and the second time bin. This broadest reasonable interpretation would be in line with claims dependent on claim 7, which incorporate information depending on the differences between the first and second collection windows such as cycle differences and background differences.
Claims 8-9 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 7.
Claims 18-19 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 17.
Claims 9 and 19 recites the limitation "between the first number of cycles and the second number of cycles" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted to read as “between a first number of cycles and a second number of cycles, wherein the first and second number of cycles represent a number of times the emitter elements emit the first and second optical signals, respectively.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zohar et al. (hereinafter Zohar, US 20180136337 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zohar anticipates a lidar system comprising:
a plurality of emitter elements to emit optical signals ([0121], [0212]; Fig. 1A, LIDAR system includes projecting unit (102) which may include a VCSEL array for emission);
a plurality of sensor elements to detect incident photons ([0121], [0157]; Figs. 1A, 4A-D, where each at least one sensor (116) includes detector array (400));
control circuitry to ([0121], [0151]; Fig. 1A, processing unit (118) may control operation of projecting unit, scanning unit, and sensing unit and may act as a common controller):
operate the plurality of emitter elements to emit a first optical signal having a first power level ([0275], where a first scan/set of pulses for each frame is emitted at a first power power), and to operate the plurality of sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a first number of time bins, the first number of time bins beginning with an initial time bin and extending to a first time bin ([0158], [0163], [0167], [0254]; where scans occur as reflected light is detected by sensor(s) and register a first time of flight, where the sensors may issue information for each sampling duration within a first set of sampling durations, for example, every 1 ns until a set number of durations is reached for a first detection range);
and operate the plurality of emitter elements to emit a second optical signal having a second power level ([0275], where a second scan/set of pulses for each frame is emitted at a second power power), and to operate the plurality of sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a second number of time bins, the second number of time bins beginning with the initial time bin and extending to a second time bin ([0158], [0163], [0167], [0254]; where scans occur as reflected light is detected by sensor(s) and register a second time of flight, where the sensors may issue information for each sampling duration within a second set of sampling durations, for example, every 1 ns until a set number of durations is reached for a second detection range),
wherein the second power level is a higher power level than the first power level ([0275], where the second emitted power may be higher than the first) and the second number is greater than the first number ([0158], [0163], [0167], [0254]; where subsequent scans of longer ranges will return a longer time of flight, and therefore will require the detection elements to issue detection information for more sampling durations).
Regarding claim 2, Zohar anticipates the lidar system of claim 1 wherein
operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a first optical signal having a first power level comprises operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a first optical signal for a first number of cycles and operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a first number of time bins comprises operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a first number of time bins for each of the first number of cycles,
wherein operating the plurality of emitter elements to emit a second optical signal having a second power level comprises operating the plurality of emitter elements a to emit a second optical signal for a second number of cycles and operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a second number of time bins comprises operating sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a second number of time bins for each of the second number of cycles ([0186], [0193], where scan cycles/frames may include repeated pulses for each frame where emission power, pattern, etc. are repeated for each scan).
Regarding claim 3, Zohar anticipates the lidar system of claim 2 wherein
the second number of cycles is equal 2 to the first number of cycles ([0197]; where number of repeated pulses for each frame may be the same).
Regarding claim 4, Zohar anticipates the lidar system of claim 2 wherein
the second number of cycles is greater than the first number of cycles ([0197]; where number of repeated pulses for subsequent frames may be increased to increase intensity).
Regarding claim 5, Zohar anticipates the lidar system of claim 1 wherein
the control signal further operates the plurality of emitter elements to emit a third optical signal having a third power level ([0275], where a third scan/set of pulses for each frame is emitted at a third power power), and to operate the sensor elements to determine a number of detected incident photons during a third number of time bins, the third number of time bins beginning with the initial time bin and extending to a third time bin ([0158], [0163], [0167], [0254]; where scans occur as reflected light is detected by sensor(s) and register a third time of flight, where the sensors may issue information for each sampling duration within a third set of sampling durations, for example, every 1 ns until a set number of durations is reached for a third detection range),
wherein the third power level is a higher power level than the second power level ([0275], where the third emitted power may be higher than the first and second) and the third number is greater than the first number ([0158], [0163], [0167], [0254]; where subsequent scans of longer ranges will return a longer time of flight, and therefore will require the detection elements to issue detection information for more sampling durations).
Regarding claim 10, Zohar anticipates the lidar system of claim 1 wherein
each sensor element in the plurality of sensor elements comprises a plurality of groups of different number single-photon avalanche diodes connected in parallel ([0159] - [0164]; Fig. 4A-4E, where array (400) may be segmented into detector regions (404) which includes groups of detector elements (402), each region can include one or more element which may include a differing number of detector elements, and each region has output circuitry (406) which connects signal output).
Regarding claim 11, Zohar anticipates both a LIDAR system and method of operating a LIDAR system ([0005]) and therefore claim 11 is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected similarly to claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected similarly to claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected similarly to claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected similarly to claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected similarly to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zohar et al. (hereinafter Zohar, US 20180136337 A1) in view of Shu et al. (hereinafter Shu, US 20180259645 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zohar teaches the lidar system of claim 1.
Zohar is silent on specifically the use of a histogram as a way to sum incident photon counts.
Shu teaches a LIDAR system which generates a histogram by combining the number of incident photons detected in the first number of time bins following the emitted first optical signal and the number of incident photons detected in the second number of time bins following the emitted second optical signal ([0057], [0102] - [0103], [0115] - [0121]; where a histogram may be a summation of two or more sets of bin accumulations).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Zohar to incorporate the teachings of Shu with a reasonable expectation of success. Zohar notes that the detection elements and readout circuit may be a summing circuit which sums responses from a plurality of detectors ([0159]-[0163]), which would integrate the histogram method as taught by Shu with a predictable result of increasing signal-to-noise values as well as accuracy of the distance measurements.
Claim 16 is rejected similarly to claim 6.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zohar et al. (hereinafter Zohar, US 20180136337 A1), in view of Shu et al. (hereinafter Shu, US 20180259645 A1) and further in view of Paesen et al. (hereinafter Paesen, US 20220326358 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zohar as modified above teaches
Zohar is silent on use of specific algorithms for data analysis of the summed counts for specific time bins.
Shu teaches a LIDAR system wherein combining the number of incident photons comprises summing the number of incident photons detected in the first number of time bins following the emitted first optical signal with the number of incident photons detected in the second number of time bins following the emitted second optical signal ([0057], [0102] - [0103], [0116] - [0121]; where a histogram may be a summation of two or more sets of bin accumulations).
Paesen teaches a system where processing counts for the time bins beginning with the initial time bin and extending to the second time bin using a first algorithm, and processing counts for the time bins beginning with the time bin following the second time bin and extending to the first time bin using a second algorithm ([0115] - [0127]; where various algorithms may be used to analyze detection time windows, which may take into account detection time windows or exposure times, and therefore an algorithm may be assigned to a first time window and a second algorithm may be assigned to a second time window).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Zohar and Shu to incorporate the teachings of Paesen to use specific algorithms aligned with different time windows with a reasonable expectation of success. Shu teaches assigning different weights to different optical signals which may be emitted at different times ([0056]), which may take into account detection windows or exposure times as taught by Paesen.
Regarding claim 8, Zohar as modified above teaches
Zohar and Shu are silent on the first and second algorithms discerning the differences in background information collected between two time frames.
Paesen teaches the first algorithm and the second algorithm which compensate for a higher level of background information from the initial time bin to the second time bin ([0115] - [0127]; where exposures are corrected for background events and values in detection time windows, and where background exposure values in longer detection time windows will have additional background detections).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Zohar and Shu to incorporate the teachings of Paesen to utilize the first and second algorithms to discern differences in background information collected between two time frames, where the shorter timeframe incurs less background noise, with a reasonable expectation of success. Knowledge that more background radiation will be collected during longer exposure times would be considered well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of LIDAR detection.
Regarding claim 9, Zohar as modified above teaches
Zohar and Shu are silent on the first and second algorithms being based on differences in a number of cycles of an emitter between two scans.
Paesen teaches the first algorithm and the second algorithm compensate for a difference between a first number of cycles and a second number of cycles ([0130] - [0133], [0139] - [0145]; where temporal error is found for individual frames, and temporal error depends on factors such as pulse sequence and width).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Zohar and Shu to incorporate the teachings of Paesen to utilize the first and second algorithms to discern differences in signals collected between two time frames, where the timeframes have emission cycle counts which may be different, with a reasonable expectation of success. As noted by Paesen, error in signals collected during frames depends on factors such as pulse sequences and pulse width (where more emissions during a given time frame will have narrower pulse widths) ([01439] – [0145]). To one of ordinary skill in the art, an algorithm which compensates for more pulses in a given cycle would have a predictable result of accounting for an increase in emission intensity, which would affect collected signals and therefore would need to be normalized.
Claim 17 is rejected similarly to claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected similarly to claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected similarly to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geuens et al. (US 20200124726 A1) teaches a system for determining a distance to an object, which utilizes collection of return signals during time windows which may have differing exposure values for different time windows.
Kim et al. (US 20220236415 A1) teaches a LiDAR system and method for determining distance, where collection time windows may be varied according to measurement conditions, and the ToF light may be calculated through statistical analysis, such as of a histogram of collected data.
Hulm et al. (US 20130301030 A1) teaches a laser scanner, which determines distance of objects, which collects a histogram of received light for multiple time intervals, which may overlap with one another.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645