Non-Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0140910 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses in Fig. 2, see esp. discussion starting at [0045]: A lidar device ([0003] discussing laser ranging and TOF indicates lidar) comprising:
a first circuit comprising a transmitter (230, laser) configured to emit an optical signal, wherein a power level of the optical signal is based on an operating parameter (a pulse parameter is used to control the total pulse duration of the pulses, which is set such that emission power is within a preset range; [0040]-[0043]; [0062]-[0063]; [0103]-[0105]);
a power monitoring circuit 210 coupled to the first circuit and configured to measure, during emission of the optical signal, an indication of the power level of the optical signal; and
at least one processor 220 configured to determine, based on a comparison of the measured indication of the power level to a nominal indication of the power level, whether to adjust the operating parameter (voltage is measured by 210. This is an indication of power level, as the system recognizes that when the voltage changes a certain amount the processor will then change the pulse parameter to change the pulse duration, changing and keeping the power stable. [0047]-[0053], [0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 2, against 230 is a laser diode. [0046].
Regarding claim 4, the pulse parameter causes the laser to emit pulses in a pulse train with a certain duty cycle, period, or number or pulses, based on a drive current signal. See Fig. 6, [0057]-[0063]. At any particular point the drive current magnitude will be affected by the pulse parameter to yield the appropriate pulse train.
Regarding claim 5, the indication of power level is the forward voltage of the laser diode, which can be considered an amount of electrical energy dissipated through the transmitter.
Regarding claims 7-8, the processor determines the difference between the measured voltage and the original (i.e. nominal) and whether the difference exceeds a threshold, and will adjust the parameter if the threshold is exceeded or maintain if it is not. [0052].
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, these are method claims that correspond to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8, respectively, and are met for the same reasons as those claims above.
Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0131034 (“Chien”)
Regarding claim 1, Chien discloses in Figs. 1 and 12: A lidar device ([0002], laser range finder) comprising:
a first circuit comprising a transmitter 21 configured to emit an optical signal, wherein a power level of the optical signal is based on an operating parameter (based on the voltage generated the high voltage generator 34, see below);
a power monitoring circuit 30 coupled to the first circuit and configured to measure, during emission of the optical signal, an indication of the power level of the optical signal ([0029]-[0030]); and
at least one processor configured to determine, based on a comparison of the measured indication of the power level to a nominal indication of the power level, whether to adjust the operating parameter (in Fig. 12 the processor receives the APC signals and compares to a default value, and decides accordingly whether the adjust the digital signal and then transfer this adjustment to the high voltage generator 34, i.e. adjust the parameter. [0045]-[0046]; note the processor does the same job as the integrator of Fig. 1 which also compares the received value with a reference to adjust the high voltage generator, [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, the transmitter comprises a laser diode. [0026].
Regarding claim 3, the operating parameter is the control voltage from high voltage generator 34. [0030], [0034].
Regarding claim 4, the transmitter emits based on an electrical signal from the driver and the high voltage generator; it is apparent that the magnitude of the signal is based on the signal from the high voltage generator. [0030], [0034].
Regarding claims 10-13, these are method claims that correspond to claims 1-8, respectively, and are met for the same reasons as those claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of US 2023/0134679 (“Hurwitz”).
Yang describes the parent claims as above, but does not show that the energy dissipated is based on a change in voltage of a capacitive load coupled to the transmitter. Hurwitz describes a system for managing optical power in a laser system, title, and among other thing it measures the optical power of a laser diode to use it to control later emissions. [0046]. The power can be determined by measuring the voltage across the laser, similar to Yang. [0046]-[0047]. The laser is also coupled to a capacitive load, see 413 CLD in several figures, and in many cases Hurwitz determines the voltage across this capacitor. [0078]-[0079]. This would likewise give an indication of the voltage across the laser given the various circuit diagrams shown, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do this as Hurwitz and Yang each want to know the voltage across the laser.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Yang or Chien in view of US 7,969,558 (“Hall”).
As noted, Yang and Chien each show a lidar system as in claim 1. They do not show that the system is part of a vehicle, is disposed in an interior or exterior of the vehicle, and provides navigation and/or mapping for the vehicle. Hall teaches that lidar systems were known that could be mounted on a vehicle and provides navigation and mapping to the vehicle. Col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 58. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a lidar system in such a vehicle application as this is a known and useful application of lidar. This would also be the substitution of a known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Lidar systems are known as in Yang and Hurwitz, but not used in the vehicle application as claimed; but this is shown in Hall. A person of ordinary skill could use these lidar systems in the vehicle application and the result would have been predicable because these systems and how they operate are already known in Yang and Hurwitz, and how to put lidar systems in a vehicle application is already known in Hall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights