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.
15 September 2023 (1/2)
15 September 2023 (2/2)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
A ‘first laser’, "
110
1
" is mentioned in the specification (example pg. 13, line 7) but does not appear in drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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:
"160" as denoted in Fig. 1 is missing from specification
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 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13, lines 28-29 "as can be seen in Fig. 1" but this paragraph seems to be actively referencing Figure 2.
Pg 21, line 21 is missing ". " between "450" and "This".
Pg. 26, line 27 references "scene 410", however “410” is defined as the primary source.
"520" is used to reference an optical (wave)guide in pg. 24, line 19 and pg. 26, line 1 but "520" is used as an "optical path" on pg. 25, line 30. While they seem to describe the same path light may follow, delineation between the more generic “optical path” and more specific “optical (wave)guide” would be beneficial.
Pg 25 line 39-pg. 26 line 1, "second array 480" should read "470".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/126255 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the reference patent anticipates claim 15 of the instant application. To one of ordinary skill in the art, the inclusion of additional steps in the method of the reference claim does not discount that the two methods will operate identically regardless of the additional limitations within 19 of the reference application, such as the light is modulated or determining errors. A comparison of the limitations is shown below, where the limitations in claim 15 are anticipated by, or obvious over, the limitations in claim 19 of the reference patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application (18/126262)
Reference Application (18/126255)
Claim 15
A method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system, the method comprising: emitting first light from a first light source; performing a ToF measurement based on detecting light incident on a first image sensor; detecting light incident on a second image sensor, the light detected on the second image sensor having travelled down an optical path of a known distance from the first light source.
Claim 19
The method according to claim 14:
Claim 14
A method of determining distance using a time of flight (ToF) system, the method comprising: emitting modulated light using a light source; detecting the emitted light at a main image sensor; detecting the emitted light at a plurality of secondary image sensors located a known distance from the light source; determining at least one of an offset and a cyclic error of the ToF system based on charge accumulated by the plurality of secondary image sensors.
the method further comprising: determining a ToF distance measurement based on the light detected at the main image sensor.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Steffey et al. (hereinafter Steffey, US 20140226145 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Steffey anticipates a time-of-flight, ToF, imaging system, the ToF system comprising:
a first light source for emitting first light ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));
a first image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, measure detector (3306) within absolute distance meter (ADM) (140) or position detector (134));
a second image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, reference detector (3308) within absolute distance meter (ADM) (140));
an internal optical path for carrying part of the first light from the first light source to the second image sensor ([0041] - [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138) and (148) exiting from fiber network (136));
and a controller configured to perform a ToF measurement by detecting light incident on the first imaging sensor ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64) which collect data from sensors such as position detector (134) to direct system and complete ToF detections).
Regarding claim 2, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to determine a characteristic of the light received at the second image sensor ([0045], [0063] where reference detector (3308) collects signals and outputs electrical signals in response to received light).
Regarding claim 3, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 2, wherein
the characteristic comprises one or more of an instantaneous intensity of the light, a measure of the intensity of light received over a period of time, an amplitude of the light, a linearity of the light ([0045], [0056], [0063] where reference detector (3308) collects signals and outputs electrical signals in response to received light and as the emitted light may be intensity or amplitude modulated, received light and therefore signals will include information on modulation, or the intensity/amplitude of the light over time).
Regarding claim 5, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 1, further comprising:
an optical control switch located in the internal optical path between the first light source and the second image sensor, wherein the optical control switch is controllable to allow or prevent transmission of light along the internal optical path ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel).
Regarding claim 6, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 5, wherein
the controller is configured to control the optical control switch to allow transmission along the optical path during a period in which the controller is performing an operation which uses light detected at the second image sensor ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel, and where the switch allows transmission along the optical path (471) when performing calibration of path length when not in emission mode).
Regarding claim 7, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 5, wherein
the controller is configured to control the optical control switch to prevent transmission along the optical path during a period in which the controller is performing an operation which does not use light detected at the second image sensor ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel, and where the switch allows transmission along the optical path (470) for completing normal emission).
Regarding claim 8, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second light source ([0050] - [0052]; Fig. 10 where system may have a second light source (not shown, emissions enter via fiber (1790)) which has emissions passing through fiber network (136)).
Regarding claim 12, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 1, wherein
the internal optical path comprises an optical guide configured to direct part of the first light from the first light source to the second image sensor ([0048] - [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138) and (148) exiting from fiber network (136)).
Regarding claim 13, Steffey anticipates the ToF system according to claim 12, wherein the optical guide comprises one or more of:
an optical fiber; a mirror; a lens; or a refractive element ([0048] - [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, where fiber network (136) may include components such as a retroreflector (472) fibers (470, 471), or fiber couplers (457, 463)).
Regarding claim 15, Steffey anticipates a method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system, the method comprising:
emitting first light from a first light source ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));
performing a ToF measurement based on detecting light incident on a first image sensor ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64) which collect data from sensors such as position detector (134) to direct system and complete ToF detections);
detecting light incident on a second image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, reference detector (3308) within absolute distance meter (ADM) (140)), the light detected on the second image sensor having travelled down an optical path of a known distance from the first light source ([0041] - [0043], [0046], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138) and (148) exiting from fiber network (136) with known length).
Regarding claim 17, Steffey anticipates the method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system according to claim 15, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling an optical switch in the optical path between the first light source and the second image sensor, the optical switch capable of preventing light transmission between the first light source and the second image sensor ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel).
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) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) in view of Steinberg (US 20220206114 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Steffey teaches the ToF system according to claim 2.
Steffey does not explicitly teach comparing the characteristic of the light collected at the second sensor to a threshold, or then operating a safety function if the value is outside that threshold.
Steinberg teaches a flash LIDAR system, where the system compares a collected subset of collected light at a sensor with a threshold range;
and operate a safety function if the characteristic of light is outside the threshold range ([0117] - [0118], [0144] - [0146], [0181] - [0182]; where light collected by a detector may be analyzed to determine if a value, such as distance of an object or intensity, is above a threshold value and if so, adjust emission of system to a manner in line with eye-safety thresholds and protocols).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Steinberg to use the collected light to determine when to operate the system within a safety function based on emitted light with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a reference or control light signal to aid in the reduction of output power is known to improve LIDAR systems for operation as "eye-safe" LIDAR, which is common within LIDAR used in autonomous driving systems. As Steinberg notes, these systems must balance output power for optimal detection and eye-safe output powers for optimal safety when in environments where emission is a danger to humans ([0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Steffey teaches the method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system according to claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: determining a characteristic of the light incident on the second image sensor ([0045], [0063] where reference detector (3308) collects signals and outputs electrical signals in response to received light).
Steffey does not explicitly teach comparing the characteristic of the light collected at the second sensor to a threshold, or then operating a safety function if the value is outside that threshold.
Steinberg teaches a flash LIDAR system, where the system compares a collected subset of collected light at a sensor with a threshold range;
and operate a safety function if the characteristic of light is outside the threshold range ([0117] - [0118], [0144] - [0146], [0181] - [0182]; where light collected by a detector may be analyzed to determine if a value, such as distance of an object or intensity, is above a threshold value and if so, adjust emission of system to a manner in line with eye-safety thresholds and protocols).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Steinberg to use the collected light to determine when to operate the system within a safety function based on emitted light with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a reference or control light signal to aid in the reduction of output power is known to improve LIDAR systems for operation as "eye-safe" LIDAR, which is common within LIDAR used in autonomous driving systems. As Steinberg notes, these systems must balance output power for optimal detection and eye-safe output powers for optimal safety when in environments where emission is a danger to humans ([0004]).
Claim(s) 9-10, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) in view of Amaya-Benitez (US 20200021792 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Steffey teaches the ToF system according to claim 8.
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system which includes determining at least one of an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) and a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) of the first light source ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system).
While Amaya-Benitez does not explicitly teach determining these values for two emitters, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would be understood this is an identical process, just applied to two signals within the system, and it has been held that "a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced" (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include additional error analysis which includes finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions with a reasonable expectation of success. As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most time-of-flight (ToF) systems, such as ToF cameras, and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]) to any emitter and detector pair within the system.
Regarding claim 10, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF system according to claim 9, wherein a controllable delay in a signal path of the first light source or the second light source ([0051]; Fig. 7 where fiber length compensator (423) may be changed to compensate for errors such as path discrepancies).
Steffey does not explicitly teach where a delay may be used to compensate for differences between offset errors of two sources.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system with an optical path (Fig. 1, internal optical path (7)) intended to carry light directly to a sensor, and where the information from that path is used to determine, and therefore correct for, errors such as an offset error ([0045] – [0046], [0123]).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez where reference and/or measurement lines, which include variable length fibers, are additionally used to compensate for a difference in offset errors of two sources with a reasonable expectation of success. The internal path of Amaya-Benitez may to be formed of a fixed optical path, or a different hardware part ([0123]) such as the variable fiber of Steffey, and use of a variable path fiber would have a predictable result of being able to compensate the system for multiple error sources, such as cyclic errors, offset errors, or temperature based errors.
Regarding claim 14, Steffey teaches the ToF system according to claim 1.
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system where the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) and an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15), based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor as a result of the light carried from the first light source to the second image sensor by the internal optical path ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system based on signals detected at detectors (4) and (5)).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include additional error analysis which includes finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions with a reasonable expectation of success. As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most time-of-flight (ToF) systems, such as ToF cameras, and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Steffey teaches a time-of-flight, ToF, imaging system, the ToF system comprising:
a light emission unit comprising at least one light source ([0041]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, light source (126));
a first image sensor ([0041], [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, measure detector (3306) within absolute distance meter (ADM) (140) or position detector (134));
an optical guide configured to direct light along an optical path of a known distance between the at least one light source and the first image sensor ([0041] - [0043]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, paths (138) and (148) exiting from fiber network (136) have known distances and lead to sensors (3308) and (3306), respectively));
an optical switch, located in the optical path between the at least one light source and the first image sensor, wherein the optical switch is configurable to allow or prevent light transmission down the optical path between the at least one light source and the first image sensor ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple signal paths (138, 148));
and a controller ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64)) configured to:
control the optical switch to allow light transmission along the optical path ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64) which collect data from sensors such as position detector (134) to direct system and complete ToF detections, including switching between modes for scanning/detection or diverted to the retroreflector (472) when not detecting).
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system where the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) and an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15), based on detecting light incident on the first image sensor ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system based on signals detected at detectors (4) and (5)).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Amaya-Benitez to include additional error analysis which includes finding an offset error and/or a cyclic error of a LIDAR system’s emissions with a reasonable expectation of success. As Amaya-Benitez notes, these errors occur in most time-of-flight (ToF) systems, such as ToF cameras, and may be eliminated by applying a suitable calibration ([0003] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF imaging system according to claim 18, wherein
when the controller is not determining the cyclic error or offset error, the controller is configured to control the optical switch to prevent light transmission along the optical path ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel, and where the switch allows transmission along the optical path (470) but not (471) for completing normal emission and normal emission is required to determine cyclic errors).
Regarding claim 20, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF imaging system according to claim 18, wherein
the controller is configured to perform a time-of-flight measurement using light incident on the first imaging sensor ([0034], [0044]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, data processor (3400) and controller (64) which collect data from sensors such as position detector (134) to direct system and complete ToF detections), wherein when the controller is performing a time-of-flight measurement, the optical switch is controlled to prevent light transmission along the optical path ([0041] - [0043], [0049]; Figs. 4, 5, 7, internal reference path includes fiber network (136), which may include switch (468) is controllable to switch between paths (470) for emission and (471) for verification of errors such as thermal drift, or compensation calculations based on time delays along multiple paths sent to the reference channel, and where the switch allows transmission along the optical path (470) for completing normal emission).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) in view of Bailey (US 20130242283 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Steffey teaches the ToF system according to claim 1.
Steffey does not explicitly teach that the second image sensor is a part of the first image sensor.
Bailey teaches a personal LADAR system where a control, or reference, signals (ARC) is sent to a second sensor, where the second image sensor is part of the first image sensor ([0041] - [0042]; Fig. 1 where detector array (5) has a subset of pixels within the array specific to detection of ARC/sample signal).
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 Steffey to incorporate the teachings of Bailey where the secondary sensor used for control or calibration light collection is a sub-section of an array, for example, with a reasonable expectation of success. As Steffey notes it is important to keep things like the fibers used for carrying reference, and measurement signals close to minimize other systemic errors such as temperature based errors ([0046]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an extension of this would be a combination of the two sensors of Steffey into a single sensor, where the secondary sensor is a sub-set of the first, as taught by Bailey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng (US 20190369251 A1) teaches a LIDAR system which utilizes multiple steering waveguides, phase tuners, and an emission control path to observe the system and determine system errors such as phase errors.
Ding (US 20220146673 A1) teaches a time-of-flight system which emits pulsed light to an environment, includes an error detection and tuning block, and may determine errors such as cyclic errors which are then compensated for.
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
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645