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.
6 February 2026
8 May 2026
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Independent claim 1, 15 and 18 have been amended by applicant’s amendments received 08 May 2026. No new matter has been introduced.
Prior objections of the drawings have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior objections of the specification have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn.
Prior rejections of claim 15 under USC § 101, provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting with claim 19 of application No. 18/126255 have been overcome by amendment and are therefore withdrawn. However, in response to the amendments a new rejection has been introduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 13, filed 08 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 12-13, 15, and 17 under USC §102(a)(1) and (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an updated interpretation of the previously applied references in response to submitted amendments.
Applicant notes that Steffey (US 20140226145 A1) does not teach the newly added limitation to independent claims 1, 15 and 18, which is persuasive. However, upon further search and consideration of the amendments, a new grounds of rejection under §103 has been found and the rejections of these claims have been updated accordingly.
In response to applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 13) regarding the dual mapping of both position detector (134) and measure detector (3306) to the first image sensor, for clarity the examiner has removed the secondary reference to position detector (134). The examiner also notes that the measure detector (3306) collects a portion of the returned signals via the fiber network’s measure channel (148), which converts the returned optical signals to electric signals and would therefore act as a sensor which collects information about the environment reflecting light, such as an image sensor would.
Applicant's arguments filed 08 May 2026 (Remarks, pgs. 14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant notes that in regards to claims 5-7, the fiber network of Steffey would not teach an optical control switch which is controllable to allow or prevent light from transmitting along a path directed to the second image sensor as the switch of Steffey selects between alternative paths. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an optical switch as referenced (such as taught by Steffey, Fig. 7) would allow the system to completely control where emissions and reflections are directed, which would act to control transmission on the optical pathway. Even if the system changes paths towards a terminus (467), retro-reflector (471), or other optical pathways (such as to emission to the environment (470)), it would act to control, or stop, transmissions of signals in an internal optical pathway as currently claimed.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amendments to claim 1, which claim 14 is dependent upon, render the limitation in claim 14 “wherein the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error and an offset error, 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” a repetition of a limitation now introduced in claim 1. As such, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 17 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 or information in the method of the reference claim does not discount that the two methods will operate identically regardless of the difference of verbiages, as both claims note determining distances from a time-of-flight (TOF) system, where this includes determining at least one of a cyclic or offset error based on a phase relationship. A comparison of the limitations is shown below, where the limitations in claim 15 are anticipated by, or obvious over, the limitations in claim 17 of the reference patent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The examiner notes that this is being considered a provisional rejection because at the time of writing this office action the co-pending application has been issued a Notice of Allowance, however a patent has not been published yet.
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; and determining at least one of a cyclic error or an offset error based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated first light received at the second image sensor with an expected phase relationship corresponding to the known distance.
Claim 17
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.
wherein determining at least one of an offset and cyclic error comprises: determining a phase relationship between the emitted modulated light and light received by the plurality of secondary image sensors; and comparing a determined phase relationship with a theoretical phase relationship based on the known distance.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-20 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 claims 1 and 15, Steffey teaches a time-of-flight, ToF, imaging system, and a method of controlling the ToF system, respectively, 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));
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).
Steffey does not discuss determining offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the emissions of the two emitters within the system, and does not explicitly mention using the phase information to determine offset and/or cyclic errors.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system where the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) or an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) based on charge accumulated by the second image sensor ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system based on signals detected at detectors (4) and (5)) as a result of the part of the first light carried by the internal optical path, by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated first light received at the second image sensor with an expected phase relationship corresponding to a known distance of the internal optical path ([0038], [0050] - [0055]; where the difference between a return path and a known reference path length give phase information between two modulated signals, which allows the system to determine errors such as cyclic errors from phase information).
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, based on a phase relationship for a known length of a reference path with a reasonable expectation of success. Finding such errors based on phase information would easily be integrated into the system of Steffey, as Steffey teaches a frequency modulated system ([0056]) which uses a reference path to give phase information between the reference path of known distance and the incident reflected light ([0045]). 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 2, Steffey as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 9, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF system according to claim 8, but 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), but 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 12, Steffey as modified above teaches 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 as modified above teaches 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 14, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF system according to claim 1, where the system determines offset errors and/or cyclic errors for the system.
Regarding claim 17, Steffey as modified above teaches the imaging system of claim 1 and the method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system according to claim 15, and therefore claim 17 is similarly rejected to claim 5.
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));
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, and does not explicitly mention using the phase information to determine offset and/or cyclic errors.
Amaya-Benitez teaches a system where the controller is configured to determine at least one of a cyclic error ([0115] - [0120]; Fig. 14) or an offset error ([0121] - [0125]; Fig. 15) of an imaging system, based on charge accumulated by the first image sensor ([0045] - [0046], where errors are found for light source within system based on signals detected at detectors (4) and (5)) as a result of light carried along the optical path, by comparing a measured phase relationship of modulated light received at the first image sensor with an expected phase relationship for the known distance ([0038], [0050] - [0055]; where the difference between a return path and a known reference path length give phase information between two modulated signals, which allows the system to determine errors such as cyclic errors from phase information).
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, based on a phase relationship for a known length of a reference path with a reasonable expectation of success. Finding such errors based on phase information would easily be integrated into the system of Steffey, as Steffey teaches a frequency modulated system ([0056]) which uses a reference path to give phase information between the reference path of known distance and the incident reflected light ([0045]). 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) 4 and 16 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), and further in view of Steinberg (US 20220206114 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF system according to claim 2, but 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 further 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 as modified above teaches the imaging system of claim 1 and the method of controlling a time-of-flight imaging system according to claim 15, and therefore claim 16 is similarly rejected to claim 4.
Claim(s) 11 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), and further in view of Bailey (US 20130242283 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Steffey as modified above teaches the ToF system according to claim 1, but 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.
Thorpe et al. (US 20160123720 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for measuring both specular and non-specular surfaces with suppressed phase-induced distance errors, wherein phase information between reference and signal sensors for the FMCW laser radar system allows for phase, or other errors, to be compensated for.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights